. . .wonder why this man has not been referred to as a terrorist.
I don't like the word terrorist.
ok . . .
So have you thought of a new name for your terrorism thread, since you don't like the word?
So have you thought of a new name for your terrorism thread, since you don't like the word?
The "Our Way or Die" thread sounds menacing and ominous, I kinda like that...
So have you thought of a new name for your terrorism thread, since you don't like the word?
No I will use the "terrorism" designation that our country and modern day society has used to chronicle the events going on around the globe, but it is also about foreign and domestic policy and how it relates to the conditions perceived to be terrorism. I still do believe we need to look at the behaviors and beliefs behind attacks that terrify people to be able to change the thinking, behavior. Here in the west, we have been too quick to throw around the label, classification of 'terrorist' to people who are not.
How do we define a terrorist? The Afghans were living in their own country not bothering anybody, our foreign forces went there shooting at them and bombing them in their own land justifying it by calling them terrorists. They never were terrorists. They did not go anyplace else bombing anybody, all they did was allow Osama to live there for a limited amount of time. The hide-out he had at Tora Bora was given to him by an Arab who owned it, NOT the Taliban. Osama want(s)/wanted a global caliphate but it was not the time for much of the world to rally around that idea. When the anti-Christ rises and wants to enslave the world, it will be Muslims who refuse right off the bat to take the mark of the beast or submit to him or the new world order. Later on, Christian militias will be fighting and some will join the Muslims in a united front against global domination and enslavement. The Jews will have their own problems because they NEVER believed Jesus to be a Messiah. While he was here he tried to help them, that was his assignment, but you know how that turned out.
We lumped together all the Muslim groups as terrorists. The Afghan Taliban were never terrorists. The Pakistani Taliban really just wanted to emulate what the Afghans did in their own country, but the US was at war with both countries and intervened in Pakistan saying we were chasing terrorists who were all involved with Osama. The Pakistani Taliban would have just stayed in SWAT and the tribal areas not bothering anybody. There wasn't much border crossing and infighting in the early days of our war over there. With all that happened that is why Isis formed in Iraq. Our actions, foreign policy caused that.
If you want to label people as terrorists and I don't like the designation, then I would extend that to the occupy wall street gang because they flat out tell you they want to tear down the government, kill police (they chanted that in their demonstration a few years back marching through New York City remember that "what do we want? dead cops, when do we want them? Now". The skinheads, neo-nazis etc. are they terrorists?
We would need to define terrorist and if we develop specific criteria that can be applied to groups who are not Muslims, then possibly we can use that. This extremist who did the New Zealand attacks, is he a terrorist? Depends on how we define a terrorist. Are all mass murderers terrorists or are they just mass murderers? Does a terrorist have to have a specific agenda beyond just lashing out at people for a sociopathic reason?
If we want to label people or classify them, then we first need to define that classification. What is a terrorist?What characteristics do they have to have in order to be one? What is the thinking/logic/behavior of a terrorist?
How about calling it "Tally Me Banana" ? Kinda catchy.
What is a terrorist?What characteristics do they have to have in order to be one?
A person willing to use violence or murder in order to bring attention to or advance a particular belief or cause. It's the definition the international political community came up with fifty years ago and it's still the best one.
If you want to label people as terrorists and I don't like the designation, then I would extend that to the occupy wall street gang because they flat out tell you they want to tear down the government, kill police (they chanted that in their demonstration a few years back marching through New York City remember that "what do we want? dead cops, when do we want them? Now".
A chant is a collective set of air being pushed by vocal cords and cannot kill anyone. Perhaps that's the difference?
Anarchists, and the occupy wall street children are anarchists will use violence to achieve their agenda. Their intent and desire was for police officers who were being forced to protect them and their right to protest meet with death. They wanted to disrupt and stop the stock exchange from functioning, I remember that march, but the police were waiting for them there also. You are correct that chanting or yelling is not a form of terrorism, but the intent of those people was to wage terrorism on the U.S. to bring down the government, they were just too stupid to know how to do that.
. . .the intent of those people was to wage terrorism on the U.S. to bring down the government, they were just too stupid to know how to do that.
Those dumb anarchists. Who do you think is smart enough to do that?
