History HubÌý permalink
Who is a "terrorist"?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 25th July 2011
Who is a terrorist? From whose perspective do/should we consider them to be? The 'underdog' David or the Goliath Government?
Western nations called Osama, the Taliban and Saddam terrorists- with good reason (a Western taxpayer's view), yet our Governments sponsored these people, known to commit horrific acts, with money and arms when it suited- are we also terrorists?
All five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UK, USA, China, Russia and France)- charged 'to maintain peace' - are the World's five biggest arms dealers. Many of our Western Governmental actions might be described as having caused, or allowing to have caused by inertia, much human misery (wars, arms supplies, ignoring non-oil related natural/man-made disasters in underdeveloped nations, etc)
During WWII, the nazis in Prague considered British-trained Czech SOE commandos to be 'terrorists' and the RAF/USAAF bombings of Dresden (and Hamburg) were also labelled so?
Historically, is Robin Hood a terrorist? His 'precursor' Hereward the Wake is famous for having led a huge revolt against King William I in 1071 at Ely, from within the fearsome marshes, where he and other dispossessed nobles fought a bitter guerilla war against the king's troops.
It seems to me that the word 'terrorist' is one vague term used by whoever it suits, with much expedience? -
Message 2
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Monday, 25th July 2011
One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. It all depends on the view from where you're standing. -
Message 3
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 25th July 2011
I agree, but in the West we are pompous asses who patronise the World with our sanctimonious preaching, whilst committing equally sick acts and policies worldwide?
-
Message 4
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 25th July 2011
Who is a terrorist? From whose perspective do/should we consider them to be? The 'underdog' David or the Goliath Government?
Western nations called Osama, the Taliban and Saddam terrorists- with good reason (a Western taxpayer's view), yet our Governments sponsored these people, known to commit horrific acts, with money and arms when it suited- are we also terrorists?
All five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UK, USA, China, Russia and France)- charged 'to maintain peace' - are the World's five biggest arms dealers. Many of our Western Governmental actions might be described as having caused, or allowing to have caused by inertia, much human misery (wars, arms supplies, ignoring non-oil related natural/man-made disasters in underdeveloped nations, etc)
During WWII, the nazis in Prague considered British-trained Czech SOE commandos to be 'terrorists' and the RAF/USAAF bombings of Dresden (and Hamburg) were also labelled so?
Historically, is Robin Hood a terrorist? His 'precursor' Hereward the Wake is famous for having led a huge revolt against King William I in 1071 at Ely, from within the fearsome marshes, where he and other dispossessed nobles fought a bitter guerilla war against the king's troops.
It seems to me that the word 'terrorist' is one vague term used by whoever it suits, with much expedience?Ìý
The terrorist is the one with the small b0mb
I see the Norwegian mass murderer is now being called a "terrorist". This IMO exposes the weakness of this term; its seen as obligatory now to call someone the worse possible word we have when they do something really reprehensible like this.
Its weakness lies in the fact that it is in reality meaningless. It has no actual definition... -
Message 5
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. It all depends on the view from where you're standing.Ìý
Surely terrorism is about the means, not the ends? Just because the cause can be considered good, doesn't make the act not terrorism. -
Message 6
Posted by Ziusudra (U14878369) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
I suppose if your looking at the root word, terror, then your are speaking subjectively. Is it no less harrowing to fear for your life shortly after buying a latte and a gossip mag, as it is when crouching through a gap in some mortar, busily scanning the horizon for more sorties? When we use the word 'terrorist' to describe the former but not the latter, we strip the word of it's significance. Another, artificial level of meaning is in regard to the political impact of attacks. What impact will Breivik have on the Norwegian Political Process? Will a Supremacist political party gain control of Norway in the next 5/10 years? Of course not. What of Libya on the other hand? Or Egypt? Will a radical Islamist group gain control over these countries in the same time-frame? The former commander of the Libyan resistance movement left because his front was being infiltrated by 'mujahideen', and potential al-Qaeda sympathisers. Are they determining the political landscape with their actions? With NATO they are.
We cannot dismiss fundamentalism in Libya as quickly as we can dismiss fundamentalism in Norway. So, Breivik is a terrorist in that he has unleashed terror on defenceless people, but he has not armed the movement he believes to spearhead. He has in fact regressed it quite considerably, and no doubt Norway will respond to those who share his fundamentalist views. In Libya, however, we have an armed, organised and supported group of rebels, themselves clashing with the political orthodoxy. The longer Gaddafi stays, the longer the bombing will last, the more the people will grow weary, and the louder they will demand an end to it. It has been the tactic since Dresden. To break the back of a country with relentless air strikes. Is this terrorism? In both senses, the fear is felt, and the political future of the country is being written. Will we ever in the west accept that it conforms to both of our sub-definitions. Unlikely. For who wants to be considered more of a monster than a man who kills despairingly? -
Message 7
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Who is a terrorist?Ìý
There appears to be no generally accepted definition. Outside political rethoric, a narrow definition of terrorism seems desirable. There is, after all, a wide spectrum of crimes can be accused of. It is not necessary to call every violent perpetrator a terrorist.
A reasonable definition, I think, would include that a terrorist is a civilian motivated by ideology (as opposed to e.g. greed), who seeks to further this ideology by covert violent action, usually against civilian targets. And this violence aims to achieve these goals indirectly by changing to the social/political climate, instead of directly as the result of the attacks themselves. Most terrorists are members of organized groups, and terrorism often takes the form of a systematic campaign, but that probably is not a requirement.
I would exclude members of armed forces -- unless they indulge in terrorism in their "spare time" -- and even of secret services. Of course such people can commit crimes, but the use of violence, openly or covert, is part of their function and (up to a point) officially sanctioned. Any crimes they commit should be considered war crimes, while terrorism is essentially a civilian activity. Terrorism also tends to be secretive in its methods, while states who apply violence usually don't bother with secrecy.
I would also exclude civilians or pseudo-civilians who are involved in open armed conflict, including guerilla warfare. I think guerilla warfare is distinct from terrorism. Guerilla warfare strives to achieve something by the direct effects of violent action (i.e., kill the enemy) while terrorism aims to have strong indirect effects. (It has to be conceded that guerilla groups, if not strictly disciplined, often resort to acts of terrorism as well.)
This -- probably somewhat controversially -- excludes most of the forms of violence which are often labeled "state terrorism". I think that is a superfluous concept, as such actions can be condemned and punished on other grounds. -
Message 8
Posted by Hugh Mosby-Joaquin (U14258131) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
" It has no actual definition..."
Apart, I suppose, from, " one who brings terror". But as you suggest, it is applied very easily, and with regard to recent horrific events in Norway, I suppose it is true.
However, it now in part carries the baggage of "one who brings inhuman destruction guided by a (misguided?) ideology". So up to the moment of discovering his manifesto, Anders Breivik was a mere lunatic. -
Message 9
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. It all depends on the view from where you're standing.Ìý As my own Â鶹ԼÅÄ nick... -
Message 10
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
And this Norse moron who hated muslims etc ...but killed his own Aryan Norwegian kinsmen and women (Doh!)
When will people wake up;- Extreme right wing....ultra-violent....homicidal...mentally unstable...? Hello? -
Message 11
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
And this Norse moron who hated muslims etc ...but killed his own Aryan Norwegian kinsmen and women (Doh!)
Ìý
He believed he was killing the next generation of the "cultural Marxists" who were facilitating multiculturalism. His concern was not the old Nazi one of racial purity but the new fascists' one of cultural purity. -
Message 12
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
His concern was not the old Nazi one of racial purity but the new fascists' one of cultural purity.Ìý
Huge difference there then? He is a terrorist, in my view. Using terror against the State and people.
Likewise, he- and those like him (David Copeland in the UK or Timothy McVeigh in the US) are extreme right-wing terrorists, morons...but dangerous ones. -
Message 13
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. It all depends on the view from where you're standingÌý Exactly. As per the Â鶹ԼÅÄ's own memo to staff disclosed not so long ago. And, even though Brevik is indeed a terrorist, had he killed Israelis instead of Norwegians, same posters here would not call him that and a moron, etc, etc. How do we know that? From this very MB, that's how.
-
Message 14
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Since 2000, the IDF has killed 1467 Palestinian children (compared to 125 Israeli children killed by Palestinians).
1467 since 2000 is about the equivalent of Breivik's tally every 9 months.
It seems in suvorovetz's world a terrorist is someone who just hasn't killed enough people. -
Message 15
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
The essence of the 'Terrorist', surely, is the use of terror itself as a weapon?
The person who strikes at a specific target for a reason is slightly different.
They may or may not achieve that specific aim, but they have a specific aim in mind.
The Norwegian who tries to kill 'the next generation of Government'.
The person who shoots the President.
The bomber crews who attack cities, with the aim of destroying factories, houses, infrastructure, workers, etc.
The terrorist strikes at random targets, not caring who is killed, in order to 'terrify' the general populace into a change of behaviour or attitude, or to provoke an over-reaction from the state that causes such a change. -
Message 16
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
We aren't alone in that. Every blighter who gets a bit of power and influence can pretty much be relied upon to exploit it. It's not a western condition - it's just the human condition.
"Terrorist" as used today by our political masters appears to me to be a relative term, usually applied to describe enemies who will not come out and stand in neat rows in a field to be blown to bits by our superior military toys.
Less contentiously, it is perhaps also a yardstick by which behaviour can be measured relative to the general consensus to one particular group/society.
Regards,
A R -
Message 17
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
The essence of the 'Terrorist', surely, is the use of terror itself as a weapon?Ìý
Absolutely, but I'll bet you a pound (for a charity of your choice) that this thread develops into a "my county/system is better than yours".
I'll bet you a further pound that this thread will produce all sorts of excuses for atrocities committed against civilians.
As an example of terrorism used in a good cause I'd offer Hugh Dalton's memo to Lord Halifax about setting up the SOE during WW2: "This 'Democratic International' must use many different methods, including ...TERRORIST ACTS against traitors and Germans..." (my capitalization for emphasis).
The bomber crews who attack cities, with the aim of destroying factories, houses, infrastructure, workers, etc.Ìý
While I'd agree that the RAF's Bomber Command's targeting of German homes was probably terrorism, the bombing of factories and infrastructure surely includes large numbers of valid military targets.
The terrorist strikes at random targets, not caring who is killed, in order to 'terrify' the general populace into a change of behaviour or attitude, or to provoke an over-reaction from the state that causes such a change.Ìý
That's as reasonable a definition of a terrorist as any I've seen. -
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th July 2011
Since 2000, the IDF has killed 1467 Palestinian childrenÌý ...the most famous of "whom" was Mohammed Al Dura. Unfortunately for the France 2 TV channel, which shares the views of this particular poster, the Al Dura hoax would be exposed and cause quite a scandal.
But we get the picture about duplicity. Moreover,
It seems in suvorovetz's world a terrorist is someone who just hasn't killed enough peopleÌý reeks of schizophrenia, coming from a marxist. Isn't more than 100 million people slaughtered in the name of marxism not enough? -
Message 19
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
The essence of the 'Terrorist', surely, is the use of terror itself as a weapon?
The person who strikes at a specific target for a reason is slightly different.
They may or may not achieve that specific aim, but they have a specific aim in mind.
The Norwegian who tries to kill 'the next generation of Government'.
The person who shoots the President.
The bomber crews who attack cities, with the aim of destroying factories, houses, infrastructure, workers, etc.
The terrorist strikes at random targets, not caring who is killed, in order to 'terrify' the general populace into a change of behaviour or attitude, or to provoke an over-reaction from the state that causes such a change.
Ìý
I don't think that distinction between random terrorists and target killers will hold. Very few terrorists do strike randomly. Most act against specific targets that represent those groups or organisations who they perceive (sometimes wrongly, no doubt, but sincerely) as their enemies.
The IRA (for example) predominantly targeted British military and political personnel and their associates. They didn't particularly care who got in the way but they did have rules limiting how far their members could directly attack purely civilian targets. But they were not somehow less terrorists when they bombed a barracks or a pub frequented by soldiers and more when they bombed a random English shopping centre. What made them terrorists was the use of violence and the terror of violence to circumvent the normal political process and achieve their aims through convincing the British army, government and population that Northern Ireland was not worth the cost.
The boundaries of what counts as terrorism are fuzzy. On one side, between acts of terrorism and acts of war and, on the other, between terrorism proper and EDL-like use of intimidation and violence for political ends. But those boundaries are not so narrow as you would set them.
Breivik's aim was to terrorise. He wanted to use the terror of violence to intimidate the political elite and shock the general population against that elite and it is that which makes him a terrorist. He is no less a terrorist because he targeted that violence against a particular group of people - the youth of the Norwegian Labour Party - due to a disturbed fixation on "Marxists" , who, in his fanaticism, he imagined he saw everywhere, behind everyone who did not bend to his twisted vision of the world. -
Message 20
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 27th July 2011
Anyone cane be considered to be "a terrorist" but I'm with Hereward on this one, and yet...Brought up when the IRA were really active, I hated what they did but could understand from an historical perspective why they acted as they did BUT could not understand why they would wish to inflict the pain and suffering they had endured onto others. The same goes for the Israelis at the risk of being labelled a Zionist causing death and destruction never heals wounds, for the afflicted nor those who inflicted them. It also never leads to "security".
What has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, has nothing to do with the Twin Towers or "our brave soldiers" but has everything to do with oil, simplistic revenge and the West making money out of a terrible situation. "We" were supposed to be helping "freedom fighters" in Libya. Yesterday William Hague was wonderfully told to get lost when he dictated terms for the "video game war" to end. Has anyone ever asked why we help Libyan "freedom fighters" and not those of Saudi Arabia? Not Foreign Office Policy of course. Money not ethics matter.
When we look at the world's major wars and religious conflicts they boil down to two things and have done since the dawn of time. The first is the accumalation of money. If you are rich and powerful you are able to dictate terms. The second is the hi-jacking of all religions by rich and powerful men, who hone their phisosophies to their own ends. Having looked at the foundations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc., etc., they have begun life as gentle philosophies, a way in which to make sense of the world. The rich and poor, men and women were considered as one. As soon as they have been adopted by a state, an Emperor or King, they are re-written to accomodate the wealthy males of that society. It has ever been thus. The entire plot becomes lost.
Young males, driven by testosterone, want public approval, wealth and a "destiny". The recent killings in Norway were not those of a lunatic but those of a male in search of fame and influence who believed it appears, that his intellectual shortcomings and hatred could influence others. Norway has responded in the most extraordinary and intelligent way to this evil man, who killed for fame and a public platform for his half-baked ideas. Norway has shown the world a way out of this "terreorism". Do NOT respond. Hatred feeds on oxygen and revenge.
The Good Friday Agreement made the warring factions in Northern Ireland come to their senses. The wonderful late and great Mo Mowlem, MP, made, enforced and charmed the leading Prots and RCs sit down and face to face exchange their fears and greivances.After so many years of blood letting, "they" had faces and were seen as real people, not causes or crusaders, just people.
Knowing that she was dyeing of cancer she apparently took off her wig, sent out for sandwhiches, cracked jokes, farted and would not let the pompous men who confronted OUT until they actually spoke to each other. The very human Mo Mowlem MADE the "warring" factions see themselves as people too. It worked. No weapons, no money, no fear, they came to realise how futile and ridiculous their behaviour was. This is of course a simplistic interrpretation of events but GOD knows we need simplicity/ common sense sometimes!
An intelligent woman cut through all the c--p and the result was Peace. Her political demise was obvious when she was given a standing ovation at the next Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair PM must have all the praise. She was removed from her post.
Terrorism thrives on fear, hence its stupid name. All "terrorists" want to be remembered for their bravery, attachtment to their "cause" and "fame", it's their very oxygen. Ignore them or show the world how intensley stupid they are before they can gain "admirers", "no martyrs wanted", and they can be sent packing. That is unless....Someone or organistation can see money in it. As a modern example, why do the names Blackwater and Noraid spring to mind? A mere sample. Business and Banks like "terrorism" as do world leaders, nothing like a foreign war and fighting "terrorism" to overcome poor ratings at home. We make terrorists, they do not come ready formed into this world, and then we feast upon what they leave. Deny them the oxygen of publicity and they die........................
P.S. We have a friend we thought was killed on that island in Norway and it took sometime to establish that she was alive. We are a Global Village. -
Message 21
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
It is curious how 'terrorist' now seems exclusively used for individuals or irregular forces.
As far as I know, the term originates with the 'Reign of Terror' in the French Revolution, being revived for the 'White Terror' and the 'Red Terror' in the Russian Civil War, all being examples of governments persecuting their enemies. And if you look up dictionary definitions, they also simply talk about using violence as coercion for political ends, with no distinction as to whether this is being applied by helicopter gunships or a bomb in a rucksack.
In other words, the modern use of 'terrorist' seems to involve the establishment claiming it has the unique and legitimate right to apply violence to its enemies. -
Message 22
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
The IRA (for example) predominantly targeted British military and political personnel and their associates. They didn't particularly care who got in the way but they did have rules limiting how far their members could directly attack purely civilian targets.Ìý
Not true at all - most PIRA violence (of which beatings, kneecappings etc always vastly outnumbered bombings) was directed against 'civilian' targets, especially within the RC community in Northern Ireland, over which the terrorists/gangsters sought control as a primary aim.
-
Message 23
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
Hello Hereword,
There can be no confusion about the meaning of the word terrorist; this is a person whose strikes serve primarily to cause panick within the ennemy lines, especiallyamong the civilians, to make the ennemy loose his determination. So the word terrorist is not in opposition of the word freedom fighter; a freedom fighter can be a terrorist and most freedom fighters were, actually.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 24
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
It is curious how 'terrorist' now seems exclusively used for individuals or irregular forces.
As far as I know, the term originates with the 'Reign of Terror' in the French Revolution, being revived for the 'White Terror' and the 'Red Terror' in the Russian Civil War, all being examples of governments persecuting their enemies. And if you look up dictionary definitions, they also simply talk about using violence as coercion for political ends, with no distinction as to whether this is being applied by helicopter gunships or a bomb in a rucksack.
In other words, the modern use of 'terrorist' seems to involve the establishment claiming it has the unique and legitimate right to apply violence to its enemies. Ìý Russia is the 'motherland' of the modern 'revolutionary terrorism' with Nechaev as its BANNER.
The Revolutionary Catechism ( written in 1869 !!! ) setting out the 'principles' of the 'revolutionaries' and might have served as the Bolshevik oath.
Its first article read :
'The revolutionary is a dedicated man. He has no personal feelings, no private affairs, no emotions, and no name. Everything in him is subordinated towards a single exclusive attachment, a single thought and a single passion-
THE REVOLUTION !!!!' -
Message 25
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
"The essence of the 'Terrorist', surely, is the use of terror itself as a weapon?
The person who strikes at a specific target for a reason is slightly different. "
'Shock and awe' is surely another way of say 'terrorise'. Most bombing runs have the aim of depleating enemy military resources but also of terrifying the enemy troops and general population, it is all terrorism in that sense.
"The terrorist strikes at random targets, not caring who is killed, in order to 'terrify' the general populace into a change of behaviour or attitude, or to provoke an over-reaction from the state that causes such a change."
An example of what you mean might have been good here. Many attacks that are very specific about the target are also called terrorism. Are 'random' targets also 'targets of opportunity' - many air missions over Iraq/Afghanistan seem to work on this basis. -
Message 26
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 28th July 2011
"The IRA (for example) predominantly targeted British military and political personnel and their associates. They didn't particularly care who got in the way but they did have rules limiting how far their members could directly attack purely civilian targets. But they were not somehow less terrorists when they bombed a barracks or a pub frequented by soldiers and more when they bombed a random English shopping centre. What made them terrorists was the use of violence and the terror of violence to circumvent the normal political process and achieve their aims through convincing the British army, government and population that Northern Ireland was not worth the cost."
IMO if you are mainly targeting the enemy military you cannot by any definition be described as a terrorist. I don't understand how you can then go on to say "they were not somehow less terrorists when they bombed a barracks or a pub frequented by soldiers"? We are trying to establish what exactly we mean by terrorist/ism then by definition if the group is targetting enemy soldiers (no matter how unjustified you may feel they are) they cannot be described as terrorists surely!
Equally you canot say "What made them terrorists was the use of violence...", all armies use violence, are they all terrorists? All armies circumvent the normal politcal process and try to convince the enemy that - to coin a phrase - resistance is futile! -
Message 27
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Friday, 29th July 2011
It only takes a few acts of outrage to bring into play the most incidious weapon of all - fear. It ties tongue , blinds,cowers and clouds people's judgement - and could happen to any one of us. Those who take the first steps towards this end are the terrorists.
P. -
Message 28
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
It only takes a few acts of outrage to bring into play the most incidious weapon of all - fear. It ties tongue , blinds,cowers and clouds people's judgement - and could happen to any one of us.Ìý
The conventional strategy behind that sort of terrorism is not to terrify so much as to provoke an over-reaction.
As a militant, my greatest enemies are the moderates, people who will seek a peaceful compromise. Acts of terrorism mean that people are no longer willing to talk. The state cracks down with oppressive measures. These split the community into 'us and them'.
The point about 'The Gunpowder Plot' was not that if you killed the leading men you would frighten the nation into Catholicism, rather that it would provoke such a reaction that moderate Catholics would have to band together and fight for their religion or be slaughtered.
And your secret weapon is that you usually have allies on the other side, the equivalent of fanatical Protestants who are equally keen to polarise society, by demanding repression or conducting outrages of their own. And in our own time, Muslim militants and the EDL both agree on the important thing; that the two communities cannot live together.
I do not claim that the half-wit with a shoe-bomb has worked this out, but the serious revolutionaries who pull the strings, like the IRA, read up on the theory of revolution and knew what they were doing. -
Message 29
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
Historically, is Robin Hood a terrorist?Ìý
Pre-industrial societies knew their terrorists as Outlaws.
Outlaws had no place to call their own, whereas BL attempted to make Afghanistan his own, for the alleged purpose of restoring the law of Islamic Caliphates to all states of the world.
In the sense that his aims were/are the same as the OIC(Organization of Islamic Conferences), and that he had the tacit support of much of the Muslim world he
was not an outlaw, merely one who represented the vain will to establish a different kind of Law, worldwide.
The Pashtun of Iran/Afgh border countries have ethnic problems, and of pride, all of their own. They have been the principal freedom fighters. -
Message 30
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
Breivik's aim was to terrorise. He wanted to use the terror of violence to intimidate the political elite and shock the general population against that elite and it is that which makes him a terrorist.Ìý
Two rather different aspects of the same problem. thank you daniel-k
If Breivik, who is described as "ethnic" Norwegian, which, to me, means
a good deal more ethnic than Norwegian, would he still describe him as a terrorist?
If Breivik represented the death of a cultural and linguistic minority in Norway, and there are several, would he still say the same. Does daniel-k defend the rights of globalists, against the rights of the ethnic individual, in a very small minority indeed, of say low thousands?
If you could only talk to your mother and auntie in the language of your birth,
your first language, an official language,would you be insane, a terrorist, or a freedom fighter, (you MAY choose all three, and possibly without being wrong)
He is described by the Norwegians as ETHNIC Norwegian by their press, which makes me think it is the case. I have met similar such nation state challenged people of other Scandinavian country origin, who have solved their personal state ,emotional problems in different ways. -
Message 31
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
...whereas BL attempted to make Afghanistan his own, for the alleged purpose of restoring the law of Islamic Caliphates to all states of the world.Ìý
Alleged by whom? Where did BL say this was his intention? -
Message 32
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
I can not show you a video clip of BL saying it unfortunately, but an inspection of the OIC(Organization of Islamic conferences) website should make this clear. OIC is a UN pressure group, of Islamic countries worldwide.
Perhaps I should not have said "alleged". It went and goes almost without saying, but as always on History MB, and since you ask, I shall endeavor to provide www .doc evidence for it. If I don't find it immediately don't count on it not being so!
Islam is a proselytising religion just the same as Christianity, and Zionism, Hinduism rather less so; that should make my contention self-evident, if not a ready proof.. -
Message 33
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
On reflection I am not going to look up OIC for hothouse, or even show him pictures of the destruction a buildings called World Trade Centre,9/11 or even remind him of the stolen sovereignty of Palestine.
What does he take me for!!!!!!!?
-
Message 34
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
'Breivik's aim was to terrorise. He wanted to use the terror of violence to intimidate the political elite and shock the general population against that elite and it is that which makes him a terrorist.'
But what was the aim of those 'would be leaders of elite' who didn't dare simply stop him. As soon as I know he acted on his own but the leaders was a helluva pack. They are weaklings but not the 'leaders'. -
Message 35
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
What does he take me for!!!!!!!?Ìý
Somebody who cannot justify his claim.
The reasons BL gave for his attacks were sanctions against Iraq, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel.
No mention of 'restoring the law of Islamic Caliphates to all states of the world'. -
Message 36
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Saturday, 30th July 2011
funny man!
Look it up! -
Message 37
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Sunday, 31st July 2011
gardda:
funny man! Look it up!Ìý
Here is a link to the Wicki piece.
Read it, read the references.
Here is a link to BL's 'letter to America' in full:
Now you can see where I get my information. So perhaps you can return the favour and tell me where he says his aim was:
'restoring the law of Islamic Caliphates to all states of the world' -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 31st July 2011
Now you can see where I get my information. So perhaps you can return the favour and tell me where he says his aim was:
'restoring the law of Islamic Caliphates to all states of the world'Ìý It's not a stretch to iterprete at least items (1) (c) (i) through (v) as such. And these can definitely be interpreted as the aim of restoring the Caliphate in ALL the lands ever to be held by Muslims. -
Message 39
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 1st August 2011
And these can definitely be interpreted as the aim of restoring the Caliphate in ALL the lands ever to be held by Muslims.Ìý
So we have dropped the 'all states of the world' bit then? That's something. So no demands to Islamify the USA or the UK?
Nor does he mention 'all lands ever held by Muslims' in the sense that if they were ever under Muslim control they still are. I am not sure what you have in mind - Spain perhaps? Or Croatia? I see no such reference.
It's not a stretch to iterprete at least items (1) (c) (i) through (v) as suchÌý
Looks very stretchy to me. The demands are that the USA etc. should stop attacking Muslims in various places where they are already.
Nor do I understand the reason for the continued use of the word 'caliphate'. A caliph is a single leader of Muslims. In the unlikely circumstance that Muslims could ever agree on such a leader, then why can't they have one? Supporters of BL have certainly called for a restoration of the caliphate, but for the 'Muslim world'. To turn 'Muslim world' into 'Muslims takeover of the world' is a stretch and a half. -
Message 40
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 1st August 2011
It only takes a few acts of outrage to bring into play the most incidious weapon of all - fear. It ties tongue , blinds,cowers and clouds people's judgement - and could happen to any one of us. Those who take the first steps towards this end are the terrorists.
P.Ìý
Yes - but "acts of outrage" don't have to be the obvious, big, dramatic happenings. They can be tiny, subtle little events, but nonetheless damaging and corrosive. They occur every day all around us. A corny quotation from what I suppose is now regarded as a book primarily for adolescents, but I hope it's relevant. It's from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird":
"Cry about the simple hell people give other people - without even thinking." -
Message 41
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Monday, 1st August 2011
An act of War against the USA, killing 4000 people in a morning, and destroying a good bit of the pentagon, is surely sufficient to assume that it includes,
proselytization of the whole world and not just restoration of the law of the caliphates in Islamic countries.
Thank you gentlemen for the gist of the discussion though. -
Message 42
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 1st August 2011
Nor does he mention 'all lands ever held by Muslims' in the sense that if they were ever under Muslim control they still are. I am not sure what you have in mind - Spain perhaps? Or Croatia? I see no such referenceÌý No surprise there. Similarly, when describing the content of Koran, in all likelihood, you'd not see certain Suras and parts of Hadith that would contradict the politically correct party line. It's contagious. In the states, NBC edited out 'under God' line twice in one broadcast of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a golf tournament, for crying out loud.
-
Message 43
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
Caliph=Czar=King
-
Message 44
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
No surprise there. Similarly, when describing the content of Koran, in all likelihood, you'd not see certain Suras and parts of Hadith that would contradict the politically correct party lineÌý
So whatever hard evidence I produce about BL's motives, i.e. what he actually said his motives are, then it doesn't matter because you 'know' he actually thinks something else.
As for 'certain Suras', I would be happy to have a theological discussion with you. I think that you would have the same problem as trying to explain Israeli politics by looking in the OT, i.e. that you can find a text somewhere that you can twist to any purpose (provided you ignore the texts that seem to say the opposite).
Still, needing to discovering BL's secret motives through a theological debate is a long way from gardda's 'look it up', so we have got somewhere. -
Message 45
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
gardda:
Caliph=Czar=KingÌý
Which you have proved by putting an 'equals' sign between them?
Are you suggesting they are all the same word, because they obviously aren't.
'Czar' derives from Caesar, which of course was the family name of the famous Roman chap.
'King' is from Germanic roots, otherwise 'cyng' etc.
But 'Caliph' is of course is ancient Arabic. It means 'successor' or 'representative'. (To some extent all men are 'caliphs' in that they represent the will of God on earth.)
A better equivalent of 'king' would be 'sultan', which means 'authority' or 'strength'.
By the way, what you really need to be scared of is 'Mahdi'. He (with the help of Jesus) is the one that will establish the Caliphate. But that is the least of your worries, because soon after the world will end and you will be judged by God for various things, such as whether you have spent your life on message boards, trying to make one religion hate another. -
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
So whatever hard evidence I produce about BL's motives, i.e. what he actually said his motives areÌý Your interpretation of what he said is not hard evidence.
As for 'certain Suras', I would be happy to have a theological discussion with you.Ìý I don't need to discuss it with you, of all people. I've read several books by formerly distinguished Muslim scholars and I cited one of the books here on MB causing much anguish by a marxist who tried to disguise his views behind ridiculous denomination of "Christian atheist." It's all on record here. -
Message 47
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
It's all on record here.Ìý
-
Message 48
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
<quote>I agree, but in the West we are pompous asses who patronise the World with our sanctimonious preaching, whilst committing equally sick acts and policies worldwide?
I don't think Hereword and like-minded posters have thought things out very well, and they are far too wetly inclined to castigate the actions and motives of their own country.
Take Afghanistan, for example. The way some posters speak you would assume that we are on a par with the Nazis! After we'd sent our enemies the Taliban packing a few years ago (remember that they were no friends of freedom-loving Afghans either!), our objective became that of spending a few years in the country in order to help them to modernise, but your "freedom fighters" came and ruined those good intentions.
It was the same in Iraq. Once Saddam Hussein had been toppled the time had come to rebuild the country and provide electric generators, water, etc. This was all ruined by the insurgents (your "freedom fighters"), who decided that blowing up market places, beheading captives, etc, etc, was the way to go instead. Who was then likely to want to go out to Iraq to help rebuild the place, pray?
You treat us as evil in the West because our economies recognise the fact of life that we are highly dependent on oil. It is plain silly to advocate disregarding this! Remember, too, that it was the West who invented the internal combustion engine and so created a market for the nations who happen to be living above the stuff but had no use for it beyond perhaps lighting their lamps. -
Message 49
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
I omitted to make the further point that your terrorists want to kill as many innocent people as they can, whereas the evil West has moral standards and only wants to kill those who are attacking it. Innocents who die collatorally are a matter of regret for the West, but not for your terrorist heroes.
-
Message 50
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2011
It only takes a few acts of outrage to bring into play the most incidious weapon of all - fear. It ties tongue , blinds,cowers and clouds people's judgement - and could happen to any one of us. Those who take the first steps towards this end are the terrorists.
P.Ìý
Isn't that what 'shock and awe' was all about?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.