[BRussell]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Now you contradict yourself quite a bit. You say that freedom fighters should attack the government and not civilians, and everyone who attacks civilians is a terrorist. Then you cite the attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, and even if you didn't explicitly mention it the pentagon as examples for a terrorist-attack.

These examples are definetly military targets, the WTC is helping financing the war-machinery of the USA, the pentagon is the planning headquarter of the US-armies, and the USS Cole is a war-ship.

The civilians that died during the attack on the military targets, well those can be called "colletaral damage", like the US-government often does.

Taliesin

The WTC was a bunch of office buildings with insurance companies and the like. There weren't any, AFAIK, government offices. It certainly wasn't "financing the war-machinery of the USA."

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Now you contradict yourself quite a bit. You say that freedom fighters should attack the government and not civilians, and everyone who attacks civilians is a terrorist. Then you cite the attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, and even if you didn't explicitly mention it the pentagon as examples for a terrorist-attack.

These examples are definetly military targets, the WTC is helping financing the war-machinery of the USA, the pentagon is the planning headquarter of the US-armies, and the USS Cole is a war-ship.

The civilians that died during the attack on the military targets, well those can be called "colletaral damage", like the US-government often does.

Taliesin

1. The WTC was not a legitimate target.
2. The USS Cole was a legitimate military target.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The WTC was a bunch of office buildings with insurance companies and the like. There weren't any, AFAIK, government offices. It certainly wasn't "financing the war-machinery of the USA."

Even if there were some government offices it's not the same thing as attacking say the Treasury Dept. or the White House.

Sounds like to me we have someone on the forum who supported the WTC attacks.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The WTC was a bunch of office buildings with insurance companies and the like. There weren't any, AFAIK, government offices. It certainly wasn't "financing the war-machinery of the USA."

This is exactly the point; the fact that one military target was attacked does not negate the attack on the non-military target by any means. Deliberately attacking even one non-military target makes you a terrorist, no matter how many military targets you might attack at the same time.

As for "collateral damage", it's true; accidents do happen sometimes. Sometimes it's even unavoidable. In cases like this, a freedom fighter will do his utmost to minimize collateral damage, and ensure that any such damage is accidental. A terrorist, on the other hand, will either not take any efforts to do this or, conversely, work to maximize such damage.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
So did the Soviet Union and the current Communist China. Putting one candidate on the ballot doesn't constitute fair and democratic elections.

I thought the correct term was 'Red China'. So you don't confuse it with Communist China and all the other Chinas out there.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Given that "Islam" = "submission to Allah" which equals no freedom in the true sense of the word, is it possible for a Muslim to be a "freedom" fighter?

Yes, it's possible, freedom can mean the freedom from any authority that is not of the same faith as the population.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The WTC was a bunch of office buildings with insurance companies and the like. There weren't any, AFAIK, government offices. It certainly wasn't "financing the war-machinery of the USA."

Maybe you are right I don't know what function the WTC has in regard to "financing the war-machinery of the USA", but the pentagon and the USS-Cole were legitimate military targets.

Maybe some american economist could shed some light about the connection of the WTC to the US-government and US-armies.

Taliesin

[Millennium]

Originally posted by eklipse:
'Terrorist' is just the commonly used term for a Muslim freedom fighter.

Incorrect, eklipse. I can point groups with Catholic, Protestant, even Shinto roots, all of which have been called terrorists (the IRA, the so-called "Army of God", and Aum Shinrikyo). And that doesn't even begin to deal with ethnic separatist groups (ETA in Spain, various militia groups in the US, and so forth).

This said, however, there does seem to be a unique trend among the Islamist freedom fighters. IRA is predominantly Catholic, and yet the government of Ireland -their host country, and also predominantly Catholic- fights them. The so-called Army of God is predominantly Protestant, yet the government of the US -a predominantly Protestant nation- fights them. Aum Shinrikyo has Shinto roots (though they are not, properly speaking, Shinto anymore), and yet the government of Japan -a predominantly Shinto nation- fights them. Note that in all of these cases, the terrorist groups are frequently fought, and fiercely, by the governments of those same nations in which they are found.

By contrast, many of the Islamist groups are given more or less carte blanche by the governments of the nations in which they are found. Sometimes they're even given funding, from their own government or foreign governments. The prime example of this would be al-Qaeda, which received funding from the Taliban, but they are by no means the only example.

This is an honest challenge: find me any non-Islamist terrorist group which is openly and knowingly supported by the government in which this group resides. Failing that, find me any non-Islamist group residing in a country whose government knows they're there and does nothing about them.

Perhaps such groups exist. I don't know. I do know that I haven't been able to find any; in any case the phenomenon seems to be much more common in Islamist groups than in others. I don't claim to know why this is. I don't think it has anything to do with Islam, given how un-Islamic these groups actually are (despite the shallow facade they give themselves to appear legitimate).

There are Muslims who ask why the War on Terror isn't being fought elsewhere. It would seem to me as though it is being fought elsewhere. Not, perhaps, by the US, but that's good; it's being fought by those who are supposed to be fighting it. But when it is not being fought by those who really should have the responsibility for fighting it, then what?

[BRussell]

I think you are right Millennium, but I think eklipse has a point in one sense. This really isn't a "War on Terror," despite what everyone calls it. Terrorism isn't a single group or ideology. Terrorism is a tactic used by many different groups. It's really a war or conflict with Islamist radicals. I'm not sure what to call them: Islamofascists? Islamic theoradicals? Muslimilitants? But we shouldn't kid ourselves into believing that the conflict isn't with a certain group of Muslims or an Islamic-based ideology, just because it wouldn't be politically correct to name a religion.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think you are right Millennium, but I think eklipse has a point in one sense. This really isn't a "War on Terror," despite what everyone calls it. Terrorism isn't a single group or ideology. Terrorism is a tactic used by many different groups. It's really a war or conflict with Islamist radicals. I'm not sure what to call them: Islamofascists? Islamic theoradicals? Muslimilitants?

I've always liked the term "Islamikazes" myself (I don't remember who came up with it), but I can see where people might be insulted by that. "Islamists" seems to be the popular term at the moment. I remember that at one point LBK mentioned liking the term "double-Muslim", but I'm not sure that's really the wisest idea for a name.

But we shouldn't kid ourselves into believing that the conflict isn't with a certain group of Muslims or an Islamic-based ideology, just because it wouldn't be politically correct to name a religion.

There's some truth to your words, to be sure. In the most direct sense (here and now), the US is fighting those who attack it, who happen to be several groups of false Muslims that have tried to use an honorable religion as a recruiting tool. However, the implications of the WoT reach way beyond that conflict. Some of those implications are good, but many -most, even?- are not.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Well, as pointed out, there are other national terror groups but those only fight within the nation whose government they oppose (IRA, Basque, Chechnya, etc). It seems that the Islamic groups are really the only international terrorists around in that they have multinational connections and sponsors in addition to targeting assets worldwide versus strictly local.

Sure, the IRA has bombed London a few times but that makes some sense in their fight considering that the UK controls Northern Ireland.

[heresiarh]

I strongly believe that the only reason why USA is such a prime target is because of their ever lasting support for Israel. I honestly think if they with draw their support for Israel, the world might just be a better place.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Probably so but if Israel is the bad guy then why didn't OBL fly planes into Tel Aviv instead? People such as OBL should know that the US will not be threatened or harassed into dropping support for our friends. If anything it will only make our resolve stronger. Japan found out the hard way what happens when you piss off a sleeping giant.

[heresiarh]

Yes but there is a certain belief that you need to hit allies also. As far as sleeping Giant, I personally cannot survive a couple of WTC attacks. One attack was enough to hurt the US. Japan attacked the so called Navy Fleet in the Pacific which wasn't a civilain target. WTC hit was more psychological. If a couple of those happen around the US, I know I will be psychologically devastated so will a lot of other people. We as Americans are not used to such horrible violence at home. I live in Chicago mate, if i see the sears tower and John Hancock building going down, I will be extremely disturbed and literally the economic impact would be terrible.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I remember that at one point LBK mentioned liking the term "double-Muslim", but I'm not sure that's really the wisest idea for a name.

It was a term coined by Richard Pryor.

[heresiarh]

Plus, can we really survive a series of chemical attacks? Sure we have all the fancy equipment and everlasting fire power, but in turn who will be seek revenge from?

US is doing the same thing as the British did during their colonial expansion, and look at England now, a diminishing economy.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Given that "Islam" = "submission to Allah" which equals no freedom in the true sense of the word, is it possible for a Muslim to be a "freedom" fighter?

Yes.

You are correct.

All good Muslims should politely bend over and accept whatever anal-shafting is meted out to them - all the while, calmly reciting: "Allahu Akbar!".

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This is an honest challenge: find me any non-Islamist terrorist group which is openly and knowingly supported by the government in which this group resides. Failing that, find me any non-Islamist group residing in a country whose government knows they're there and does nothing about them.

Oh, I can find them - but, chances are you will disagree with my definition of 'terrorist groups' - much like my definition will probably differ from the next man's.

This is the crux if the problem: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - it is unlikely that there will ever be a universal agreement as to which groups fall into which categories.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
Yes but there is a certain belief that you need to hit allies also. As far as sleeping Giant, I personally cannot survive a couple of WTC attacks. One attack was enough to hurt the US. Japan attacked the so called Navy Fleet in the Pacific which wasn't a civilain target. WTC hit was more psychological. If a couple of those happen around the US, I know I will be psychologically devastated so will a lot of other people. We as Americans are not used to such horrible violence at home. I live in Chicago mate, if i see the sears tower and John Hancock building going down, I will be extremely disturbed and literally the economic impact would be terrible.

When I saw the WTC go down it made me angry. Angry enough to want to find those responsible, slice their balls off, and sew them up their noses.

If we cower in fear then the terrorists will have won. If we cower in fear then we aren't Americans any longer.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
Plus, can we really survive a series of chemical attacks? Sure we have all the fancy equipment and everlasting fire power, but in turn who will be seek revenge from?

US is doing the same thing as the British did during their colonial expansion, and look at England now, a diminishing economy.

The UK is declining due to the UK being a colonial power which at one time reached all corners of the globe.

The terrorists can attack us by they will never win.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
look at England now, a diminishing economy.

Yeah. Smaller than Oregon yet outperformed only by California. Really diminished.

[heresiarh]

We as Americans have conveniently installed fear in others for the past fifty years, we are strong but not immortals. One should lead a humble life, not one filled with over whelming pride, it can always back lash. I don't believe the WTC attack was done by the people we blame. Those people just don't have enough resources to run an operation like this. Come on, Afghanistan as a training ground where there aren't any proper roads, electricity or anything of that sort. The WTC attack was planned by some intelligence agency highly capable of achieving their goals. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but most things don't seem right.

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
We as Americans have conveniently installed fear in others for the past fifty years, we are strong but not immortals. One should lead a humble life, not one filled with over whelming pride, it can always back lash. I don't believe the WTC attack was done by the people we blame. Those people just don't have enough resources to run an operation like this. Come on, Afghanistan as a training ground where there aren't any proper roads, electricity or anything of that sort. The WTC attack was planned by some intelligence agency highly capable of achieving their goals. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but most things don't seem right.

How much planning does one need to hijack a few planes and crash them into buildings? It's not that hard when you consider it.

[heresiarh]

The bottom line is that I hope there is a solution to all these modern day issues, Iraq war, Afghanistan war etc.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...

This is an honest challenge: find me any non-Islamist terrorist group which is openly and knowingly supported by the government in which this group resides. Failing that, find me any non-Islamist group residing in a country whose government knows they're there and does nothing about them.

...

Uhm, lemme see....

Noraid (American Irish catholics supported the IRA for years without any real hinderance from the US government).

Paramilitary right wing death squads in Columbia, supported and aided by their own government and army for years.

Paramilitary right wing death squads in El Savdor, supported and aided by their own government and army for years.

Paramilitary right wing death squads in Guatmala, supported and aided by their own government and army for years.

Paramilitary right wing death squads in Brazil, supported and aided by their own government and army for years.

Paramilitary death squads in the Serbian part of Bosnia and Kosovo, supported and aided by their own government and army and that of Serbia itself for years.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This is an honest challenge: find me any non-Islamist terrorist group which is openly and knowingly supported by the government in which this group resides. Failing that, find me any non-Islamist group residing in a country whose government knows they're there and does nothing about them.

No problem, the challenge is accepted: The CIA and the american paramilitary troops during the whole cold war-time are/were terrorist-groups knowingly housing in the USA with the direct support of the USA-governments.

Taliesin

[BigMeatyChunks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
No problem, the challenge is accepted: The CIA and the american paramilitary troops during the whole cold war-time are/were terrorist-groups knowingly housing in the USA with the direct support of the USA-governments.

Taliesin

Nice try, but, government agencies cannot be terrorist groups.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Nice try, but, government agencies cannot be terrorist groups.

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially
as a political weapon); "terrorist activity";
"terrorist state"

n : 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

If the shoe fits.....

[BigMeatyChunks]

Or if it doesn't...

[spacefreak]

"Freedom Fighters" fight for the right to vote and have their views represented.

"Terrorists" do not care for the right to vote, for they only want their (extreme) minority views imposed on everyone else. They cannot achieve what they want via elections, so they resort to terror.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BigMeatyChunks:
Nice try, but, government agencies cannot be terrorist groups.

Why not?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by heresiarh:
I don't believe the WTC attack was done by the people we blame. Those people just don't have enough resources to run an operation like this. Come on, Afghanistan as a training ground where there aren't any proper roads, electricity or anything of that sort. The WTC attack was planned by some intelligence agency highly capable of achieving their goals. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but most things don't seem right.

OK, now who's perpetuating Arab stereotypes.... Only westerners are intelligent enough to fly a plane into a building? Only westerners are capable of funding a vast network of people?

Oddly enough, I imagine this is just the kind of talk that convinces Arabs that we in the West don't think they're capable of governing themselves. That's why how Iraq is rebuilt is so important: if we can show that we will support a democratic Iraq, but otherwise let it stand on its own, it will be a good first step towards showing that we value them as equals, and not as vassals. That's not giving in to terrorist demands, but it will lead to a reduction in people who feel the need to kill themselves to make a point.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This is an honest challenge: find me any non-Islamist terrorist group which is openly and knowingly supported by the government in which this group resides. Failing that, find me any non-Islamist group residing in a country whose government knows they're there and does nothing about them.

I know the question is not addressed to me but...

A covert RCMP operation called Operation Kabriole was revealed Thursday in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. RCMP, with the co-operation of Alberta Energy Company, blew apart a shed at one of the company's gas wells near Hythe on Oct. 14, 1998.

Alberta Justice Minister Jon Havelock and a spokesperson for federal Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay have said they were unaware of the RCMP's tactics until Thursday.

Police blamed the blast on saboteurs, hoping an informant could take credit for it and win the trust of the suspects. The informant, Robert Wraight, is a key witness in the Crown's case.

The court heard that Wraight -- known as K4029 to the RCMP -- offered to co-operate with police last year if AEC bought his farm for $109,000. Provincial land records show the property was sold in November to Robert and Donna Relland for $105,000. Wraight has since disappeared.

In the wake of the bombing, local officials held meetings to try to ease area residents' fears.

One woman who spoke about her fears at the time said she's disgusted to learn the RCMP was behind the explosion.

"The police cannot treat us this way. It's just not right," said the woman, who refused to give her name. "You have no idea the fear that's up here for people."

News of the RCMP's involvement in the bombing also troubled Philip Stenning, a University of Toronto criminologist who studies police ethics.

"Anybody who knows anything about policing, particularly involving organized crime and terrorism, knows this kind of thing is occasionally resorted to by police," Stenning said.

But before it is, the government must pass legislation to allow police to bend the law. Police are authorized to import, sell and manufacture drugs in order to fight the drug trade. But there is no law allowing them to mimic terrorist acts, Stenning said.

The RCMP was the focus of a royal commission headed by Justice David McDonald nearly 20 years ago. The inquiry was called to look into the RCMP's handling of terrorism by separatists in Quebec.

The Front de Liberation du Quebec, in its quest for an independent province, bombed mailboxes, factories and the stock exchange. At least seven people died. The violence culminated in October 1970 with the kidnapping of British trade commissioner James Cross and the kidnapping and murder of Quebec labor minister Pierre Laporte.

It was later revealed the RCMP, in its zeal to battle the terrorists, burned down a barn where an FLQ meeting was to take place. The police also stole dynamite from a construction yard and broke into a Quebec printing plant to steal a copy of the Parti Quebecois' membership list.

I know, I am stretching it a little bit. But of course, what we don't know...

The Keable Commission was set, and stopped, in order for the MacDonald Commission to make recommendations regarding police ethics.

[angaq0k]

Here is abother one about the Rainbow Warrior

Although initially identified as Alain Jacques Turenge and his wife Sophie Frederique Clare Turenge, inquiries revealed their true identities to be Major Alain Mafart, aged 35 and Captain Dominique Prieur, aged 36.

Serving as commissioned officers in the French Armed Forces, they had been detailed to assist members of the French Security Forces to ensure the much publicised voyage of the Rainbow Warrior to French territorial waters did not eventuate. To prevent the voyage occurring the vessel had to be so extensively damaged that repairs could not be completed in time for the voyage to begin.
(...)
The positioning and successful detonation of the explosives indicated those responsible were trained and expert in underwater warfare. A sighting of Mafart and Prieur in possession of the Zodiac dinghy led to their early apprehension by New Zealand Police. Initially arrested on charges relating to false passports, they were later charged with arson, conspiring to commit arson on the Rainbow Warrior and with the murder of Pereira.
(...)
On the night of 10 July 1985 disaster struck. Shortly before midnight two high explosive devices, attached to the hull of the Rainbow Warrior some time previously, detonated within the space of a few minutes. The force of the explosions was such that a hole eight feet in size was opened below the waterline at the engine room. The vessel sank within minutes.

Earlier that evening approximately 30 people had been on board the ship attending a birthday party and at the time of the explosion 12 people, including the captain, were still present. Only 11 made it to the safety of the wharf. Fernando Pereira, crew member and official photographer was drowned while attempting to retrieve photographic equipment from his cabin.

True, the French agents were operating in New Zealand. But still, what a heck of an operation for some ecologists.

But yeah, Greenpeace is a well known terrorist anti-corporation group...

[angaq0k]

And how about pollution, and its effects on environment, and consequently on the well-being of human beings? That would be real eco-terrorism... Link

And how about economic terrorism? Is not the fact that people controlling the markets are also controlling jobs, and especially the access to jobs?

Ok. Let's replace terrorism by "oppression". The result is not different by much; people oppressed economically may not get the ambition of trying again.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yeah. Smaller than Oregon yet outperformed only by California. Really diminished.

I think that was the point. At one time the English Empire was a little bit bigger than Oregon.

[Taliesin]

Another interesting idea differentiating between freedom fighters and terrorists:

The freedom fighters get called terrorists until they are successful. The success in freeing themselves from opression or occupation turns terrorists into freedom fighters. The history-telling about the freedom fighters formerly known as terrorists changes then all the bad things they may have done during their freedom-fight into heroic things, or simply erase the very bad things they might have done totally from the "free-nation's" memory.

Examples are the jewish terrorists in palestine before Israel was founded, whose terrorist-activities have led to the withdrawal of the british army. Or the terrorists who have enfreed the southafricans from the apartheit-regime...

Taliesin

[christ]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think that was the point. At one time the English Empire was a little bit bigger than Oregon.

I don't think that there has ever been an English Empire.

And Britain realised that ultimately empire-building is futile and counter-productive.

The USSR did too.

The USA will too.

Eventually.

[osiris]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, the US supporting Bin Laden when he was a terrorist against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was wrong? Or was he a freedom fighter back then ...?

I think Ronald Reagan affectionately referred to the Taliban as Freedom Fighters.

Long after the Russian-Afghanistan war, Bin Laden became 'a friend' of oil industry dignitaries in Texas. But I guess the friendship didn't work out.