Moscow Metro suicide bombings [Archive]

Ant10708

Mar 31st, 2010, 12:24 AM

Actually, call me a cynic, but I think it's working perfectly for them. America and Russia.

They keep people scared, their attention focused on a never ending war, willing to look the other way or actively support the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, and no patriot would dare ask questions about anything.
I really don't understand your point? Is the russian government really the ones keeping people scared you think(I'm not subject to their media so I have no real idea)? My point is that the govt doesn't need to keep people in fear because they have legitmate reasons to be afriad provided by the chechen fighters. I'm pretty sure suicide bombings and schools being taken hostage will have that effect of frightening citizens. The Russian government hasn't made up these Chechen extremists or do you think they have? I don't even understand how "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing especially taken into context that it was said after two people blow themselves up on a subway! Unless you believe that one person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter but I think its fair to say people who blow themselves up on subways to kill civilians are not legitmate freedom fighters. "We will not destroy those who blow up our civilians on subways and actually start a peace process with the chechen freedom fighters" sounds even more disturbing to me. I understand the russian govt will use these evnts in their favor but does that really take away from the seriousness of the situation? If I was a russian citizen I'd be pretty concerned about there being people technically within your own borders that are basically left to their own devices to continue planning and executing acts of violence against mostly civilians. I know the russian government isn't innocent in all of this but I'll never understand how anyone can side with people(no matter how bad their plight is or how much they have been taken advantage of by other groups) whose main form of resistance is to kill civilians . I am sure there are plenty of decent chechens out there who obviously should not become scape goats but I find it hard to understand that you wouldn't want your govt to try to prevent these people from commiting these types of crimes. And how is this even being compared to afghanstan? this is in what is internationally recognized as russia terroritory. I mean it sucks these people have been displaced and oppressed for so long but blowing up civilians and committing other acts of what most would call terrorism is a pretty good way to get most of the world to not be on your side.

"ALMOST every month for the past two years, Chechen suicide bombers have struck. Their targets can be anything from Russian soldiers to Chechen police officers to the innocent civilians who were killed on the subway in Moscow this week." - NY times. sounds pretty intense to me

edit: After reading more on the subject it seems the russian government is defiantly fucking with your rights alot more then the united states govt ever did with the patriot act. so i see why your so cynical :(

Zhukov

Mar 31st, 2010, 10:12 AM

First of all, the Russian government isn't fucking with my rights that much. I'm not Russian I'm Australian. I don't know if that was a mistake but I thought I should clear it up. I'm cynical about the whole thing because I know that Russia is capable of peace, they just do everything in their power to make is seem more and more distant.

It's not in the realms of fantasy to envisage that the Russian government perpetuates violence in the regions so as to effect a violent reaction from the people that live there. Yes, a bomb blowing you up on a train is a legitimate thing to be scared of, and it's a real thing, but it's something that wouldn't exist without the involvement of the Russian government, and the fear of it is used like a tool by, not only Russia, but many countries.

The Russian government hasn't 'made up' the extremists out of thin air, but they certainly have played a part in creating them.

The statement "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing to me for a number of reasons. On one hand it is as vague as is expected of any government; anyone can be classed as a terrorist, and the destruction of 'terrorists' can range anywhere between hanging a captured fighter to bombing a city into dust and leaving the populace to starve in the winter. Both of which have and will continue to happen. You could read into it and say that destroying terrorists means destroying the existence of terrorism through negotiation and peace, but as Medvedev has already stated, there isn't going to be any of that.

On the other hand it is very to the point. Terrorists will be destroyed. They wont get a trial, they wont be sent to prison. There are no words like 'justice' thrown into the mix, is that a relaxation on the part of the government for overusing a word that means so little, or is it a simple fact that there wont be justice? Who knows. "In retaliation for these bombings we are going to kill people", that's what I read, and of course it's going to be a lot of people, many of whom will have had nothing to do with the crime already committed.

That is why it is disturbing to me. It's means there is going to be killing and I don't see how that can be anything but disturbing. You can say that it's just being frank of what would happen anyway, but that's another reason it's disturbing, you can just come out and say that in revenge you will kill undisclosed amounts of whoever you want, and people will feel safer because you said it.

Whether the people that utilise terror tactics deserve to die is another thread. I understand that people have to die sometimes for there to be peace, but this isn't in aid of that.

Oh, and no, I don't think that he was simply referring to the fact that terrorists will indeed be destroyed by the simple fact that they blow themselves up to become a terrorist.

Please tell me how you see "we will start a peace process" as disturbing. Or more disturbing than what I said. I'm interested.

I never said I was on one side or another, actually, and I didn't think that we had to point out that we don't condone the act of killing 38 civilians, otherwise I would have said that. I think it's a disgusting act, and I don't condone killing innocent people in any way. I do, however, see that the origins of these acts are bred from circumstances caused by the Russian Government. In all honesty, the caucus is a complicated mess of morals, with both justice and terror on either side, and I'm not naive enough to say that anyone is fighting for freedom and hope, but then again I'm not stupid and blind enough to think that more fighting, and more bombing and more revenge killing and more occupation is going to stop the ... uh, fighting, bombing, killing and occupations. Certainly not in this case.

The situation is much more fucked up than "Russia is fighting for it's territory in Chechnya, and the Chechens are fighting back". If it was, it would be easier to pick sides. No, if Russia removed all troops from the region there would still be attacks in Moscow. There are Islamic extremists fighting there that are not even from any of the surrounding countries, and if it was as simple as Russia seeing the bad guys and shooting them then that would be great. I don't think I have to explain the effects of war on the population, nor the growing support for extremist Islam simply in defiance of Russian actions. It's just not so simple. Not in the Caucus, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. It's not cowboys and indians where the good guys shoot all the bad guys and then they've won. It's not easy enough to say that the Chechen fighters are the good guys, which you assumed I am. It's not easy, and rather than endless war, endless killing and endless war widows driven to blow themselves up on trains, there needs to be compromises and peace so that a solution can be worked out. The Russian government knows this, the American government knows this, but it's much more beneficial to keep the whole joke running.

Why don't the rebels/militants/Islamic extremists/terrorists stop fighting then? Well, for one, when you are attacked you fight back, two, it's beneficial to the Islamic nut jobs to have jihads too. But it's the civilians that you have to make peace with; don't give them a reason to support the 'terrorists', give them reasons to support democratic governments in Chechnya and Ingushetia that are also supported by Russia. Easy, no? Not fucking it up even worse might be a good start.

The Leader

Mar 31st, 2010, 01:57 PM

I don't even understand how "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing especially taken into context that it was said after two people blow themselves up on a subway!
1.Focusing on military intervention is counterproductive when dealing with terrorism.
2.It demonstrates that there is no wiliness to compromise ensuring the continuing escalation of violence perpetrated by both sides.
Unless you believe that one person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter but I think its fair to say people who blow themselves up on subways to kill civilians are not legitmate freedom fighters.
The idea that there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is illogical as they are both the same thing: non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.
I know the russian government isn't innocent in all of this but I'll never understand how anyone can side with people(no matter how bad their plight is or how much they have been taken advantage of by other groups) whose main form of resistance is to kill civilians .
In the United States many members of the Sons of Liberty are revered, such as Paul Revere, John Hancock, John Adams, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. The Sons of Liberty destroyed property, attacked, maimed and killed British soldiers and individuals deemed to be collaborators with the British.

I find it hard to understand that you wouldn't want your govt to try to prevent these people from commiting these types of crimes.
Because they are going to cause an escalation in violence by not allowing alternatives for Chechen terrorists other than fighting.

And how is this even being compared to afghanstan? this is in what is internationally recognized as russia terroritory.

“Foreign” occupation resulting in suicide attacks in the occupying states.
I mean it sucks these people have been displaced and oppressed for so long but blowing up civilians and committing other acts of what most would call terrorism is a pretty good way to get most of the world to not be on your side.
The only other option for Chechens who oppose the Russian occupation is to do nothing.

Zhukov

Apr 1st, 2010, 12:21 AM

The idea that there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is illogical as they are both the same thing: non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.

Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.

You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc. I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.

Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.

The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.

Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.

Ant10708

Apr 1st, 2010, 04:02 AM

Dimnos

Apr 1st, 2010, 10:34 AM

Freedom fighters are terrorist that won.

The Leader

Apr 1st, 2010, 11:29 AM

The Leader is the exact kind of person I will never understand when it comes to issues of terrorism. How can you not tell the difference between people who blow themselves up on civilian subways and people who take up arms against the military and or goverment? It just seems very crazy to me that you see them as equal forms of resistance. The fact that some Chechens " fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state" kind of proves this point. Even if they are the same people doing both kinds of fighting, they just delegitimatize their cause when they resort to brutal attacks on innocent civilians. You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.

Just because governments have taken to misusing the word doesn't mean that real terrorism doesn't exist.
I'm looking at it objectively. As Dimnos wrote, freedom fighters are terrorists who have won. Just because you see things from one perspective doesn't meant that it is the absolute truth. You are basically espousing all of the fallacies that are present in the media about terrorism. Someone is a terrorist if you don't agree with them or their actions. That doesn't make sense. What you are doing is attaching stigma to the term terrorism, just like the majority of people have.

I have no idea what that last bit you wrote was about, governments misusing the word terrorism? If anything they don't use it enough, namely when referring to terrorist groups that they support.

TheCoolinator

Apr 1st, 2010, 11:38 AM

The Leader

Apr 1st, 2010, 11:46 AM

You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.
I'm actually writing a paper on this aspect of terrorism right now. :x

And it is rational, most who support the causes are rational, the use of female suicide bombers is rational and the targeting of noncombatants is rational. It might not be moral, but the immorality of killing innocent people can easily be made moral.

Their cause is also legitimate: freedom from what they view as oppression. It may not be legitimate from where you stand, but in order to effectively combat terrorism (meaning come up with a solution or improvements) you cannot look at the terrorist's actions from your perspective alone. You have to recognize that there are legitimate grievances and if you wipe out one group of terrorists, another will likely develop because the original issues were not addressed.

I'd also like to point out that our military has done far worse things than the Chechen terrorists have, but the difference between that and terrorism is that the United States is a state actor. The term for this sort of action would be state terror, as opposed to terrorism. That's a bit of a digression but Zhukov mentioned something like this.

The Leader

Apr 1st, 2010, 11:57 AM

Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.

Not if they're a state.

You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc.
How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror?
I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.
Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants).

Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.
Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns.

The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.
. . . Ok?
Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.
There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.

Zhukov

Apr 1st, 2010, 12:56 PM

Not if they're a state.Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.

How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror? Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants). Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts. When you are killing collaborators, then you might be crossing a line, sure. Maybe you are killing them so that they don't help the enemy anymore, but more likely you are killing them because you don't want anyone else to do it. You are scaring others out of doing it.

The partisan movement during WWII was huge. Tens of thousands of ex-red army and local militia men fighting the German invaders, they often received orders from STAVKA, and in near the end of the war the 4th Belorussian front comprised of partisan units against the front lines of the German army. They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.

Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.

Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns. Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.

There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.
True enough.

My point to you is that if you are not aiming to terrorise, and your actions don't cause terror, then are you a terrorist? I guess you could always argue that violence will always create terror SOMEWHERE, but that's a bit silly for me.

Let's say someone blows themselves up on a transit train and kills 10 people. Scares the shit out of the population, maybe even shakes the government. That's terrorism because you have used this violent tactic to strike fear into the hearts of mere men and mortals. On the other side of things, if someone blows themselves up on a troop train sending soldiers into your occupied homeland, well were you trying to scare people or are you trying to just kill enemy soldiers? Same methods, different outcomes and aims.

The Leader

Apr 1st, 2010, 01:11 PM

Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.
No, read my responses to Ant. They'd be a state conducting state terror.

Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts.
You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group. By this definition there are no terrorists. Also I have distinguished that it is terrorism if the target is a noncombatant so engaging a soldier out on patrol would not be terrorism.

They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.
Fair enough.

Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.
They have to be targeting noncombatants: off duty soldiers or civilians. They also have to be non state actors.

Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.
I defined terrorism previously. Morality is ambiguous, as demonstrated by your use of "ethical" armed resistance. Is it ethical for you to kill my brother just because he's a soldier occupying your homeland? From my perspective, no. What morality has to do with sucess is when a effective tactic is found but it would normally be unjustifiable, such as suicide terrorism, there can be ways to morally justify it. The Russian civilians in the subways were Russian citizens. They pay taxes which finance the Russian military who are the enemy. They are part of the enemy. Killing them is like killing a soldier.

Right there you have the justification for killing innocent people. You just have to make them not innocent.

The Leader

Apr 1st, 2010, 01:16 PM

Let's say someone blows themselves up on a transit train and kills 10 people. Scares the shit out of the population, maybe even shakes the government. That's terrorism because you have used this violent tactic to strike fear into the hearts of mere men and mortals. On the other side of things, if someone blows themselves up on a troop train sending soldiers into your occupied homeland, well were you trying to scare people or are you trying to just kill enemy soldiers? Same methods, different outcomes and aims.
The aim of both of those is to cause a withdrawal of military forces (If the two hypothetical attacks were parts of different conflicts then they shouldn't be compared like that).

Zhukov

Apr 1st, 2010, 01:52 PM

I guess we're getting down to definitions here. I define terrorism as an act that inflicts terror, with the goal of inflicting terror. You say it's individuals or non state (or unrecognised state) groups when they target non-combatants.

It's WWII. Let's say that there is an old Belorussian man that sends the German garrison a carton of milk every two days so that they can have healthy teeth and bones, simply because it's a nice thing to do. Let's say he has no family, friends or contacts. He is a hermit. The Germans don't know who sends the milk they just guzzle it like the filthy swine they are. The local partisans send out someone to kill him, because they want the Germans to have weak bones so that fighting on the front lines they will drop their guns and not kill so many sons of the motherland.

So the partisan kills the old man by clubbing him in the back of the head. He dies, and the Partisan buries him in his backyard. Nobody knows about the killing, nobody cares, but an operative of an unlawful group has killed a non combatant. Is that terrorism?

I say no, it's just murder.

You can't get bogged down with definitions when you are defining the actors rather than the act. Much more logical and precise to identify whether the act itself is terrorism, by looking at the aims and outcomes of the act.

You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group.
True. Ok. You can be a terrorist if you are part of a group that commits terrorist acts (my definition). That is fair enough. In the examples I have put forward I never stated if said hypothetical person was part of a group though. If they are part of a terrorist group, then yes, they are a terrorist using at that point in time non-terrorist tactics. If they aren't part of a terrorist group, then they are not a terrorist, since they are not using terror tactics (my definition). My example of the partisan killing the old man, is the act an act of terror? Not in my defining of the word. Is the partisan a terrorist for that act? No. Is he a terrorist if he belongs to a group that regularly dips into the pool of terrorist tactics, knows about the use of these tactics and doesn't disagree with them? Yes.

The aim of both of those is to cause a withdrawal of military forces Yes, but I was looking slightly less far into the future. Same future aim (no more soldiers in my country), same act (blowing yourself up), different .. uh, bit in the middle? The history of warfare is not always about killing the enemy soldiers until they are dead, it's usually about killing the enemy soldiers until they give up. Anyway, I think once you put on the uniform, swear the oath of allegiance and what not, then you are representing your nation, it's morals and values, and you are responsible for it. I think a soldier is a fair target for disagreement. All subjective of course to what you are disagreeing over. Am I babbling and not making sense? It's nearly 5am.

The Leader

Apr 1st, 2010, 02:03 PM

I guess we're getting down to definitions here. I define terrorism as an act that inflicts terror, with the goal of inflicting terror. You say it's individuals or non state (or unrecognised state) groups when they target non-combatants.
non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.

It's WWII. Let's say that there is an old Belorussian man that sends the German garrison a carton of milk every two days so that they can have healthy teeth and bones, simply because it's a nice thing to do. Let's say he has no family, friends or contacts. He is a hermit. The Germans don't know who sends the milk they just guzzle it like the filthy swine they are. The local partisans send out someone to kill him, because they want the Germans to have weak bones so that fighting on the front lines they will drop their guns and not kill so many sons of the motherland.

So the partisan kills the old man by clubbing him in the back of the head. He dies, and the Partisan buries him in his backyard. Nobody knows about the killing, nobody cares, but an operative of an unlawful group has killed a non combatant. Is that terrorism?

I say no, it's just murder.
Correct, they were not attempting to affect wider change. Their intent was to merely kill the dude supplying the milk, not to cause Nazi withdrawal or influence anyone.

You can't get bogged down with definitions when you are defining the actors rather than the act. Much more logical and precise to identify whether the act itself is terrorism, by looking at the aims and outcomes of the act.
Whether or not someone or a group is a terrorist is defined by their actions or intent. Read my definition.

If they are part of a terrorist group, then yes, they are a terrorist using at that point in time non-terrorist tactics. If they aren't part of a terrorist group, then they are not a terrorist, since they are not using terror tactics (my definition). My example of the partisan killing the old man, is the act an act of terror? Not in my defining of the word. Is the partisan a terrorist for that act? No. Is he a terrorist if he belongs to a group that regularly dips into the pool of terrorist tactics, knows about the use of these tactics and doesn't disagree with them? Yes.
An individual can use terror tactics. The underwear bomber was not sent out by Al Qaeda, he was not given that mission from them. Yes, he had ties to terrorist groups but he was acting of his own individual accord. Look at my definition for why I would count a individual such as he as a terrorist.

Yes, but I was looking slightly less far into the future. Same future aim (no more soldiers in my country), same act (blowing yourself up), different .. uh, bit in the middle? The history of warfare is not always about killing the enemy soldiers until they are dead, it's usually about killing the enemy soldiers until they give up. Anyway, I think once you put on the uniform, swear the oath of allegiance and what not, then you are representing your nation, it's morals and values, and you are responsible for it. I think a soldier is a fair target for disagreement. All subjective of course to what you are disagreeing over. Am I babbling and not making sense? It's nearly 5am.
See my definition. ;/ And you're making sense.

Zhukov

Apr 2nd, 2010, 03:36 AM

Not really much disagreement going on here, I think it's just that we've both got different definitions, I think yours is probably closer to what the official line is, but I like mine better. I lean towards every action being subjective at the time, rather than trying to fit it into pre defined categories, easy enough to say, maybe not easy enough to do. Especially when you are a government, and require a stance on such actions at all times.

What's your paper about?

Oh, and you said that the partisan killing the old man was both a terrorist and not a terrorist.

Ant10708

Apr 2nd, 2010, 03:38 AM

I have no idea what that last bit you wrote was about, governments misusing the word terrorism? If anything they don't use it enough, namely when referring to terrorist groups that they support. The Australian dude mentioned how govts now overuse the word terrorism to describe anyone who disagrees with them or opposes them. thats what i was referring to

Zhukov

Apr 2nd, 2010, 03:40 AM

Hang on, I was going to ask:

What if your non-state actor causing a violent act on a non-combatant isn't trying to affect change? What if they are simply doing this act for the sake of it? Say, blowing up a hospital simply for the act of causing terror and panic in the population?

By me, it's terrorism. Causing terror. But if they aren't doing it to affect change with the government or individuals, is it terrorism to you?

Ant10708

Apr 2nd, 2010, 03:56 AM

What if someone has the sole aim of causing chaos? I'm not saying that is the case in the russian bombings but I am sure there have been plenty of people who live in these lawless areas and just enjoy killing and terrorizing locals. Would that be terrorism since the sole aim would be to cause chaos?

I just don't see how these people' tactics are not terrorism just because they might have a legitmate grievance. AND YES OUR GOVERNMENT HAS DONE WORSE LIKE DROP NUKES AND BLANKET BOMB GERMANY AND DONT FORGET THE NATIVE AMERICANS! but our past wrongs do not make current tactics being used to purposfully kill civlians right and its a pretty weak arguement that just because we have done worse that its an acceptable means of resistance to purposfully target civilians on public transportation. The "freedom fighters" in pakistan and iraq kidnap kids routinely or buy them from their parents and then brainwash them to become suicide bombers. Most suicide bombers have been heavily brainwashed into believing that what they are doing serves god or whatever. They have no clue about the legitmate grievances. maybe this doesnt apply to the women suicide bombers because they are probaly widows who had their husbands killed by the russians but id say the majority of suicide bombers are brainwashed pawns(alot of the time the detonator isnt even with the person wearing the vest because of the very likly chance of the person chickening out). they even believe that some of the 911 hijackers werent even aware they were going on a suicide mission because most people would rather not die. although some of the 911 hijackers were very educated and obviously not brainwashed pawns but I'd say most committing these types of acts are.
The fact that you even say suicide bombing is rational doesn't make sense to me. suicide is committed by irrational people(maybe not when done by old people or people with terminal diesease). its irrantional to not want to survive in my opinion.

interesting discussion none the less!

Ant10708

Apr 2nd, 2010, 03:56 AM

The Australian and I think alike apparently.

kahljorn

Apr 2nd, 2010, 05:34 AM

By me, it's terrorism. Causing terror. But if they aren't doing it to affect change with the government or individuals, is it terrorism to you?equivocation. the word terrorism doesn't necessarily mean any act which creates chaos/terror.

What if your non-state actor causing a violent act on a non-combatant isn't trying to affect change? What if they are simply doing this act for the sake of it? Say, blowing up a hospital simply for the act of causing terror and panic in the population?

Then he's just a jerk? and not a terrorist.

Zhukov

Apr 2nd, 2010, 07:36 AM

equivocation. the word terrorism doesn't necessarily mean any act which creates chaos/terror.

Not any act, no, because most violent acts do cause terror. But an act with the explicit aim of causing terror? Why not?

Then he's just a jerk? and not a terrorist.
Right, so he plants a bomb/blows himself up, destroys a hospital, kills innocent children and sick people, all in the name of causing terror.... and you don't think that counts as terrorism?

Again, I think you guys are being too tight with your definition. It has to be a non-state actor, acting against non-combatants with the express aim of coercing change... but if you do it for sheer terror sake, rather than change, well I guess you suddenly fall out of the category.

TheCoolinator

Apr 2nd, 2010, 10:00 AM

Zhukov

Apr 2nd, 2010, 10:20 AM

No way! :eek

TheCoolinator

Apr 2nd, 2010, 11:46 AM

No way! :eek

Most.....terrorist activities are either state sponsored or are caused when a group of people are being treated unfairly without any means of recourse, mediation, or justice.

It's easy to point a finger at someone and yell "terrorist" after they commit any illegal act but it's difficult for the vast majority of people to understand how they became "terrorists" in the first place. I'm not saying they are justified in their actions. They aren't, but they are easily manipulated and give authoritarians reason to clamped down on civil liberties while getting rich off the security industry.

Zhukov

Apr 2nd, 2010, 11:49 AM

That's a load of baloney. I don't believe that at all.

They're just ... I don't know, evil or something lol. Probably born that way. The terrorists can't be reasoned with you just have to kill them unfortunately. If that means bombing the terrorist countries before they send someone around to blow themselves up in my country then so be it.

TheCoolinator

Apr 2nd, 2010, 11:51 AM

Zhukov

Apr 2nd, 2010, 11:55 AM

Just get out of this thread.

TheCoolinator

Apr 2nd, 2010, 11:56 AM

Just get out of this thread.

Fine.....:(

The Leader

Apr 2nd, 2010, 12:18 PM

Oh, and you said that the partisan killing the old man was both a terrorist and not a terrorist.
When? :O
Hang on, I was going to ask:

What if your non-state actor causing a violent act on a non-combatant isn't trying to affect change? What if they are simply doing this act for the sake of it? Say, blowing up a hospital simply for the act of causing terror and panic in the population?

By me, it's terrorism. Causing terror. But if they aren't doing it to affect change with the government or individuals, is it terrorism to you?
It’s not terrorism, it’s just random violence. I don’t think that you’d find any groups doing that though. Maybe just some nut opening up on a bunch of people in a shopping mall kind of thing.
I just don't see how these people' tactics are not terrorism just because they might have a legitmate grievance.
I stopped reading your post after this part because you obviously don’t understand anything that I’ve written. They are terrorists. Terrorists do not have to be bad guys or good guys. I do not personally support terrorism. Re-read my posts.
I think you're all missing the point here.
You’re missing the point because we weren’t discussing state sponsorship of terrorism.
Very similar to calling someone a Conspiracy theorists for not adhering to the established paradigm.
No, you still don't know how I stand on global warming and all of that. You're a conspiracy theorist because you support a conspiracy theory. You can be completely correct. You are incapable of understanding other people's posts because you have no concept of objectivity. People are either good or bad from your perspective and no one can discuss something from the middle ground.

Basically you're an idiot.

The Leader

Apr 2nd, 2010, 12:22 PM

It has to be a non-state actor, acting against non-combatants with the express aim of coercing change... but if you do it for sheer terror sake, rather than change, well I guess you suddenly fall out of the category.
Correct, I'd just view him as a mass(?) murderer. This isn't really that important though, because there is no set definition of terrorism. The definition that I use is the one that I think fits best with the groups and individuals historically referred as terrorists.

Different departments of the US government actually have different definitions of terrorism.:x

TheCoolinator

Apr 2nd, 2010, 01:27 PM

You’re missing the point because we weren’t discussing state sponsorship of terrorism.

Ummm.......Didn't your dicussion start because of the recent Chechen Terrorist bombing?

If so isn't this a valid point to back up Zhukov's point of view?

V

Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”

http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-campaign-linked-to-chechen-terrorism/

His name is Ilyas Akhmadov. He's being funded by the USA. His Chechen fighters were the ones who bombed the Russian subways. The USA refuses to release Ilyas Akhmadov into Russia custody. I don't really know how much simpler I could put it.

You're a conspiracy theorist because you support a conspiracy theory.

Your a terrorist because you support terrorists. :)

The Leader

Apr 2nd, 2010, 02:22 PM

Ummm.......Didn't your dicussion start because of the recent Chechen Terrorist bombing?

If so isn't this a valid point to back up Zhukov's point of view?

His name is Ilyas Akhmadov. He's being funded by the USA. His Chechen fighters were the ones who bombed the Russian subways. The USA refuses to release Ilyas Akhmadov into Russia custody. I don't really know how much simpler I could put it.
It'd be one thing if you turned the discussion towards that but you came in acting all high and mighty, thinking that what you're writing is something that we don't already know. You're slow.

Also most terrorism is not state sponsored. That was only the case during the cold war.

Your a terrorist because you support terrorists. :)
I think that what I'm writing is going over your head.

TheCoolinator

Apr 2nd, 2010, 02:32 PM

Also most terrorism is not state sponsored. That was only the case during the cold war.

If it's not state sponsored then it's provoked, if it's not provoked then it may really be real people taking the law into their own hands. That's rarely the case though.

State sponsored terrorism didn't disappear after the Cold War. It's always been around.

The Leader

Apr 2nd, 2010, 02:37 PM

Did you miss the most part? You're so stupid. Next you're going to be telling me the sky is blue and when I call you stupid for that, you'll interpret it as me disagreeing that the sky is blue.

kahljorn

Apr 2nd, 2010, 04:19 PM

I think you're all missing the point here. Terrorism is anything that's used to strike fear into a specified population. Meaning it isn't just bombs going off and random acts of aggression, it can also be fake radio broadcast such as the War of the Worlds incident or fake news story designed to pull on people’s emotions to created a expected response. Fear, anger, hostility, its all very psychological.

that's exactly why I said its equivocation. "TERRORISM IS JUST THE CAUSING OF TERROR. SO LIKE WHEN YOU SNEAK UP ON A CHILD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, FIND HIS FAVORITE TOY AND WAKE HIM UP TO YOU DESTROYING IT YOU ARE A TERRORIST. WHY DOESN"T THE GUBERMENT DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS."

"THE CREATORS OF ALL HORROR MOVIES ARE TERRORISTS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CAUSE TERROR ON PEOPLE."

But an act with the explicit aim of causing terror? Why not?Horror movies cause terror, right? So are their creators terrorists in the sense of TRANSNATIONAL TERRORISTS? MAYBE CAUSE THEIR MOVIES GO TO OTHER COUNTRIES. What about, "transnational terrorists who blow shit up?" WELL THEY DID BLOW UP THE BOX OFFICE AM I RITE?
The simple fact is that "TERRORIST" can have more than one meaning, including meanings which do not refer to people who blow up other shit. I mean seriously, do you think people who make horror movies are really the same as terrorists? Coolinator apparantly does. As if Orson Welles purpose was even similar to a terrorists purpose :rolleyes

AT SOME KIND OF UN ADDRESS, "WE ARE BRINGING CHARGES OF STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE WE RECENTLY IMPORTED THIS MOVIE, 'HOLLOWEEN,' WHICH FRANKLY HAS MANY OF OUR CITIZENS, SOLDIERS AND POLITICIANS IN A STATE OF TERROR. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES WAY OF PAVING THE WAY FOR AN ATTACK."
"OH GPOD! THE AMERICAN ENGINEER CORPS IS ATTACKING AND THEY'VE BROUGHT SOLDERS."

I mean shit according to this definition IM a fucking terrorist. Do you know how many times in my lifetime I've sat around a corner waiting for a friend, only to scare the living shit out of him? Yep, that's right, I'm a terrorist. I'm sure everybody on this message board, in that sense, is a terrorist. Plus how many of you have reccommended scary movies to people? Terrorists. Is guantanamo bay in all of our destinies?
If you don't separate the meanings of these two types of terrorism, then really the word is useless. Just like with practically every other word in the world that can have more than one meaning...

It seems to me that old standing armies with uniforms and expensive machinery are outdated and not cost effective. What works better for the powers that be is funding small groups of upset disenfranchised people and unleashing them on your nearest enemy. This is how warfare is fought in the present.

Yea cause like terrorists have taken over so many countries.

I dunno this is typical stupidity. Somebody sees a word like "TERRORIST" and then goes, "WELL, LIKE, I USED TO GET NIGHT TERRORS, SO LIKE, SLEEPING THEREFORE IS A TYPE OF TERROR. OUR GOVERNMENT TERRORIZES US, SO THEY MUST LIKE WANT US TO SLEEP!"
thats the kind of thought process i see, but maybe I'm wrong. I can't tell you how many times I see this sort of lazy philosophizing, though.

I'm not so sure that being a "Terrorist" really even has anything to do with causing terror.

Ant10708

Apr 2nd, 2010, 10:25 PM

"I stopped reading your post after this part because you obviously don’t understand anything that I’ve written."

That is a great way to get people to re-read your posts.

The Leader

Apr 2nd, 2010, 10:32 PM

Are you saying that it doesn't work?

Ant10708

Apr 2nd, 2010, 10:41 PM

Oh and Coolinator. We are trying to have a fucking discussion and your dumbass is distracting everyone from what is an interesting thread on terrorism. I don't even know why kahl is talking about horror movies as if thats what people mean by causing terror among the population and I assume its because of your stupid ass.

What is the definition of is. Is all i think about when people debate what is terrorism. Fly a plane into IRS building = terrorism. fly a plane into twin towers = terrorism. blow yourself up on a train, subway, whatever with the aim to kill as many civilians as possible is terrorism. You don't want to call it terrorism thats fine. As if the word to describe these people really matters. The fact is these people have no respect for human life and their idea of resistance fighting doesn't have much of a place in the modern world. And I don't know how any educated person brought up in a western country could ever try to defend their actions by claiming they are fighting oppression or that the problem is caused by us and we just ignore the source of their pain. As if these people would stop fighting for their cause if we left the middle east. Half have been brainwashed as kids. many have no idea the reasons why they fight. they are islamic gang members essentially who like explosives. they blow their own mosques up for gods sake.they are irrational morons who will always have a cause to fight for because they think Palestine's capital should be in the middle of what is now israel which will obviously never happen and is such a ridiclous demand for peace. and didnt you know jews and americans are evil.

Ant10708

Apr 2nd, 2010, 10:47 PM

I also don't think someone is acting on their own indiviual accord when their plane ticket is financed by the group and the group trained him in explosives which is the case of the underwear bomber. They didnt just send him on his merry way. They trained the 'soldier' and financed his mission. Hes apart of the group I'd say or maybe I'm misinformed but i thought he was trained in yemen.

From wikipedia obviously not the most reliable source but im in a rush. "Yemeni officials said that he was in Yemen from early August 2009, overstayed his student visa (which was valid through September 21), and left Yemen on December 7 (flying to Ethiopia, and then two days later to Ghana)." "Yemeni officials have said that Abdulmutallab traveled to the mountainous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab#cite_note-56)Shabwah Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabwah_Governorate) to meet with "Al Qaeda elements" before leaving Yemen."

The New York Times reported that "officials said the suspect told them he had obtained plastic explosives that were sewn into his underwear and a syringe from a bomb expert in Yemen associated with Al Qaeda."

from what i read it sounds like he was def sent on the mission by al qaeda or some group of islamic fanatics using the name al qaeda like they all seem to do nowadays. jesus i can't spell qaeda for the life of me.

According to a U.S. intelligence official, intercepts and other information point to connections between the two: "Some of the information ... comes from Abdulmutallab, who ... said that he met with al-Awlaki and senior al-Qaeda members during an extended trip to Yemen this year, and that the cleric was involved in some elements of planning or preparing the attack and in providing religious justification for it.

What a free thinking individual the underwear bomber was. Like I said all that came from wikipedia which might of been entered in by george w bush for all i know. But i remember reading very similar things from bbc news and other credible new sources when this was front page news.

kahljorn

Apr 3rd, 2010, 02:00 AM

Fly a plane into IRS building = terrorism. fly a plane into twin towers = terrorism. blow yourself up on a train, subway, whatever with the aim to kill as many civilians as possible is terrorism. You don't want to call it terrorism thats fine. As if the word to describe these people really matters. The fact is these people have no respect for human life and their idea of resistance fighting doesn't have much of a place in the modern world.

the word to describe it does matter because we punish people and make policies based on it.
Modern world? which one.

they are irrational morons who will always have a cause to fight for because they think Palestine's capital should be in the middle of what is now israel which will obviously never happen and is such a ridiclous demand for peace. and didnt you know jews and americans are evil.

well didn't some other countries give jews jerusalem as part of some peace treaty or something i dunno.

Ant10708

Apr 3rd, 2010, 03:31 AM

as far as i know obama doesn't use the war on terrorism term or rhetoric anymore or atleast not very often.

israel was formed in like the 50s. its time for the palestinians to accept reality and stop demanding shit that will never happen like having a capital in someone else's present day country. its internationally recognized as a country(yes the jewish people have settlements outside their terroritory but why would they ever stop now? when they removed most of the settlements it didnt bring them one step closer to peace). this isnt something i just made up. they shouldn't even worry about the jews with all the internal fighting that goes on. it they just focused on making their lives better for their kids and stop worrying about the destruction of israel maybe in the future they'd have better lives and a functioning country. like if palestinian became a country tomorrow it would still be a shithole and they would just be officially at war with israel opposed to fighting a guerrlla war. arafat was def fighting for his people and to improve his country thats why his wife lived in a mansion in a different country and he had millions. lets use kids the easiest to manipulate and turn them into suicide bombers before the age of 16. i can see why its so easy to side with the palestinians. i mean they have such a loving and tolerant culture.

modern world as in first world countries opposed to third world countries where they don't have modern technology, medicine, or infrasture. im glad this needs to be explained because you feel inclined to nitpick words. MODERN TO WHO.

one defintion of modern is =Of or relating to a recently developed or advanced style, technique, or technology: modern art; modern medicine.

well we have modern medicine and tecnology that they don't

another defintion = One who has modern ideas, standards, or beliefs.

I'd say since western countries are typically more secular, science friendly, and don't blow themselves up very often,oh and we don't treat our women like a sub species. oh and we have sewer systems.... i'd say we have more modern ideas, standards and beliefs in general.

i know theres so much to love and admire about the middle east. i mean who doesn't love the oppression of women in the 21st century?

all the middle eastern foriegners(three men from pakistan) i work with all agree that their home countries are pretty violent and intolerant and not very pratical compared to the life and thinking in america. and most say that the majority of the people back in their home country espeically the uneducated are very sympathic to al queda cause and are very brainwashed to hate jews, europeans and americans. one guy doesnt even want to go back to pakistan to visit his relatives because suicide bombings are becoming so common place there. we can keep lying to ourselves and say they don't have a problem in their culture but they do. its just humorous because the people who moved from pakistan that i work with have no problem labeling the bombers in pakistan or iraq as terrorists or the recent subway bombers as terrorists but for some reason whiney americans do. they are unhappy with our foriegn policy and with civilian casulaties but they are smart enough to recognize we arent the evil country we are made out to be and that we actually offer people who come to our country including muslims a greater oppurtunity at a good life compared to pakistan or most of the neighboring countries can. they also dont think suicide bombers are a legitimate form of resistance to oppression. they also like that they can criticize our govt without fear of retribution. but we are evil i tell them. go back to pakistan. thats where freedom thrives and oppurtunity awaits!

maybe im just more exposed to middle easterners being from ny but most dont like our foriegn policy but they also dont like how badly these fools are harming their religion's reputation in the world with their disregard for human life. and most would agree that theres def an indoctrination problem in the middle east and that their culture and countries are being overrun and held hostage by fanatics. crazy NY with their tolerance for everybody

kahljorn

Apr 3rd, 2010, 04:01 AM

i just think saying that their form of resistance doesn't have much place in the modern world is kind of interesting since their form of resistance exists in the modern world and seems to have quite a place in their modern world ...

israel was formed in like the 50s. its time for the palestinians to accept reality and stop demanding shit that will never happen like having a capital in someone else's present day country. its internationally recognized as a country. this isnt something i just made up.So?
Anyway, their whole argument is that its really their country or some shit anyway so it kind of mitigates that claim but whatever i dont really want to argue about that.

Ant10708

Apr 3rd, 2010, 04:04 AM

i know i wish you and coolinator didn't gay up this thread.

They can argue it all they want that its their country, rightfully so or not, but it won't change a damn thing and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. hmm maybe this time blowing up a cafe will get the israelies to back off us.

kahljorn

Apr 3rd, 2010, 04:06 AM

i know theres so much to love and admire about the middle east. i mean who doesn't love the oppression of women in the 21st century?

all the middle eastern foriegners(three men from pakistan) i work with all agree that their home countries are pretty violent and intolerant and not very pratical compared to the life and thinking in america. and most say that the majority of the people back in their home country espeically the uneducated are very sympathic to al queda cause and are very brainwashed to hate jews, europeans and americans. one guy doesnt even want to go back to pakistan to visit his relatives because suicide bombings are becoming so common place there. we can keep lying to ourselves and say they don't have a problem in their culture but they do. its just humorous because the people who moved from pakistan that i work with have no problem labeling the bombers in pakistan or iraq as terrorists or the recent subway bombers as terrorists but for some reason whiney americans do. they are unhappy with our foriegn policy and with civilian casulaties but they are smart enough to recognize we arent the evil country we are made out to be and that we actually offer people who come to our country including muslims a greater oppurtunity at a good life compared to pakistan or most of the neighboring countries can. they also like that they can criticize our govt without fear of retribution. but we are evil i tell them. go back to pakistan. thats where freedom thrives and oppurtunity awaits!This has something to do with the definition of terrorism, right?

Ant10708

Apr 3rd, 2010, 04:13 AM

we already concluded that terrorism has no concrete definition. stop arguing. you said you didn't want to:confused:. im all hopped up on red bull and cant sleep so excuse my mushing together of topics and diverting from the main disscussion. How to properly define terrorism and does it even exist? yay fun....

before you fools started talking about definitions we were discussing if terrorists as we know them are legitimate fighters/soldiers for their movements. interesting discussion before you and coolinator arrived

agrajtech11

Apr 3rd, 2010, 06:57 AM

That was very hazardous problem.

Zhukov

Apr 3rd, 2010, 09:49 AM

The internet is awful for discussions between three or four people because I don't want to spend an hour quoting and typing every point made since I last posted :(

As for the point about horror movies and their ilk, I wouldn't count them as terrorism, obviously. If you want me to throw 'violence against innocent people' as another requirement, then sure, but my definition isn't supposed to be rigid in the sense that if you aren't points A through B then you aren't a terrorist. I was more leaning towards a view of being subjective about these acts/groups, and maybe base whether they are terrorists less on ticking the boxes required of 'terrorism', and maybe focusing on the emotions (no laughing at the back please) not only behind the attacks/groups, but the effects that they cause.

Obviously this isn't something that is likely to either become any nations mantra, or actually change Al'Qaedas classification or anything, it's just how I see things.

Ant: Kahl always brings something to a discussion. Oh, and you know that there are stances other than 'with us or against us', right? People can talk shit about Israel and it's many human rights abuses without also praising the sewerage systems of the West Bank.

Coolinator: seriously, you are not wowing anyone or causing any of us to second guess everything we believe in. It's like it's September 20th 2001 with you, and you think we need to be told that *GASP* we live in a new world, things are going to be different, and while we're at it don't believe everything the government tells you about so called terrorism. Hey, have you heard that America went into Iraq on false pretenses about WMDs? Wait a second I have a photo around here of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld... Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, I know right? But, here's the thing, America is pretty much married to Saudi Arabia because of, get this, oil. Fucking blood for oil. Do you guys know they call them happy meals to appeal to children? Seriously, they are targeting children with advertising now.

The Leader

Apr 3rd, 2010, 11:46 AM

they are irrational morons who will always have a cause to fight for because they think Palestine's capital should be in the middle of what is now israel which will obviously never happen and is such a ridiclous demand for peace. and didnt you know jews and americans are evil.
1. I'm not defending their use of violence or terrorism. I am merely trying to explain it. By understanding terrorists and terrorism it allows us to better combat it. Just because you do not agree with something, or someone's methods does not mean that it is not a rational choice. Their goals can be, and often are, unrealistic, but the choice to use terrorism is rational.

2. You are generalizing the situation in the middle east horribly.

3. There is actually great debate going on about whether or not the guy who flew the plane into the irs building was a terrorist or not. Some argue that it was merely a murder suicide attempt because his life had gone to shit while others think it could be construed as a overall attack on the irs and the American system.

4. Terrorists argue many of the same things that you are arguing about them. Who is right? You, them, or is it relative? Once again I am not making an argument for either side, my posts, ignoring the ones for coolie, have just been attempting to explain terrorism and the mindset that leads people to thinking that it's ok to blow up a bunch of innocent people.

The Leader

Apr 3rd, 2010, 11:51 AM

kahljorn

Apr 3rd, 2010, 07:09 PM

well i just wanted you to know why considering any act that has the intent to cause terror terrorism might be problematic.

The Leader

Apr 3rd, 2010, 08:40 PM

WHO ARE YOU RESPONDING TOO

Ant10708

Apr 4th, 2010, 01:09 AM

Yes, he was trained, etc. I'm not aware of them actually telling him what flight to get on, where to put the explosives on his body, etc. They just provided him with material and training and condoned his actions. It wasn't thoroughly planned by a group, but more so by him alone, hence the reason that he had no idea how to properly mix the chemicals to cause a sufficient ignition.They don't plan specifics for most of their acts of terror and many of the people only know very specfic parts of the overall plan. that because its easier to get caught if you plan everything out and tell everyone. They also have sleeper cells and they are part of the overall organization. Some of the 9/11 hijackers didnt even know how to properly fly a plane into the capital. i guess that wasnt thoroughly planned either and those terrorists planned it alone.bin laden didnt sign them up for flying school and buy their plane tickets for them. they did it themselves. that doesnt mean they werent part of a larger organization making this happen with training, money and spiritual support. or maybe you think they were lone wolves

"They just provided him with material and training and condoned his actions." That just sounds so dumb to me. Oh they only provided him with the bomb making material, training and told him he'd get 72 virgins in heaven if he did it but they in no way helped plan the attack lol. yup he was a free thinking individual no doubt about it.

Ant10708

Apr 4th, 2010, 01:39 AM

Ant: Kahl always brings something to a discussion. Oh, and you know that there are stances other than 'with us or against us', right? People can talk shit about Israel and it's many human rights abuses without also praising the sewerage systems of the West Bank.

no shit thats why i mentioned about the pakistan people i know who talk shit about the us govts fopriegn policy but also condem suicide bombers and the tactics being used by their people. thats the exact opposite of with us or agaisnt us(tahts looking at both sides of a situation without being an idiot). these people in the middle east need to do the same. i work with these people and generally agree with them about our foriegn policy. but talking shit about israel as the sole cause of their problems and pretending that palestinians uphold human rights better is just absurd to me. i get my news from bbc which is def not pro israel but i can still be well read enough to know that the palestinians will never get anything they want if they keep fighting for the destruction of israel. the isralies atleast make an effort(like pulling back settlements) and not straight up bombing them entirely. most countries wouldnt put up a group of people next door to them calling for their destruction. they have arabs in their country who dont live as comfortable life but they arent treated the way a jew would be treated in palestine. i watched a documentary where i think a british reporter was killed by an israeli tank(obviously one of the problems of israel) while he waved a white flag but before that he was in a home with palestinians and they were teaching their kids that jews were dogs. They don't even know that most people driving tanks on their lands are mostly arabs. Their culture has a fundalmental problem with tolerance especially when it comes to women, different religions, or anything they dont fucking approve of. Denying that is insane and an insult to women and jewish people most of all. Israel has a problem maybe with their military tactics but i dont believe they have racism and hate seeping into their culture like a virus. thats my point. the jewish population on long island doesnt start killing muslims because the palestinians blow up cafes in israel. but for some reason many mulims blow themselves up because of the plight of the palestinians. if palestine could take over israel tomorrow and the terrorists in the middle east would just start fighting amongst themselves for power or concentrate on another group of people(russians maybe) they deem fit to kill. I just don't understand how people support modern day middle eastern culture. They routinely circumcise women as a punishment and teach their kids using only the koran. they are backwards culture compared to the western world.

even when the taliban was gone the men of afghanstan didnt suddenly start treating women like humans. the men are taught its ok to be an animal to women at a young age. thats not ok to me.

"Forced marriage, particularly of girl children, and violence against women in the family are widespread in many areas of the country. These crimes of violence continue with the active support or passive complicity of state agents, armed groups, families and communities. This continuing violence against women in Afghanistan causes untold suffering and denies women their fundamental human rights. "

"Even when a woman is able to approach the police or the courts, she faces extreme discrimination. "

"Ziba", aged only 14, was sentenced to three years in prison for running away from home. She had been abused by the cousin she had been forced to marry when she was 13. "

""If my husband cannot prove to his family that I am a virgin, I would be hounded, ostracised and sent home in disgrace. My father, who is a devout Muslim, would regard it as the ultimate shame."

""The entire family could be cast out from the friends and society they hold dear, and I honestly believe that one of my fanatically religious cousins or uncles might kill me in revenge, to purge them of my sins. Incredible as it may seem, honour killings are still accepted within our religion." -pakistani woman who had her hymen "restored"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-502714/Why-Muslim-girl-born-virgin-wedding-night.html#ixzz0k6gXU6rj

Rea

I don't know how these people are accepted or excused or explained by what seems like educated people. The culture has problems. Many have no naccess to information and are brainwashed since birth. If you think all their problems stem solely from us or israel then i think your wrong. this is the 21st century and women are still routinely subjected to honor killings by their families and we are suppose to want to understand that culture? i understand that its been perverted and is desperatly in need of reform or some sane people in power who are not still living in the 19th and early 20th century frame of mind.

if neo nazis started routinly doing the things being done in the middle east there would be an uproar and it wouldnt be tolerated for one second atleast in america. for some reason being muslim gives you a right to be a racist and treat women like dogs without being questioned.

Zhukov

Apr 4th, 2010, 04:37 AM

but talking shit about israel as the sole cause of their problems and pretending that palestinians uphold human rights better is just absurd to me.

Nobody is saying that, hence:

People can talk shit about Israel and it's many human rights abuses without also praising the sewerage systems of the West Bank.

It is perfectly acceptable to view both groups with the same scrutiny. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to focus on Israel without also feeling compelled to 'balance' things out by throwing in criticism towards the Palestinians as well. We're not children, and you can't assume we are supporting terrorism (oh, whatever that word may mean) from Palestinians simply because we don't support it from Israel.

The Leader

Apr 4th, 2010, 11:06 AM

They don't plan specifics for most of their acts of terror and many of the people only know very specfic parts of the overall plan. that because its easier to get caught if you plan everything out and tell everyone. They also have sleeper cells and they are part of the overall organization. Some of the 9/11 hijackers didnt even know how to properly fly a plane into the capital. i guess that wasnt thoroughly planned either and those terrorists planned it alone.bin laden didnt sign them up for flying school and buy their plane tickets for them. they did it themselves. that doesnt mean they werent part of a larger organization making this happen with training, money and spiritual support. or maybe you think they were lone wolves

"They just provided him with material and training and condoned his actions." That just sounds so dumb to me. Oh they only provided him with the bomb making material, training and told him he'd get 72 virgins in heaven if he did it but they in no way helped plan the attack lol. yup he was a free thinking individual no doubt about it.
Al Qaeda planned the september 11th attacks and sent those men to carry out the attacks. How could they be the ones to plan it if most of them didn't even know what the targets were? That's not what I'm talking about when I'm referring to individuals who carry out their own attacks. Have you ever actually studied terrorism or do you just catch the news occasionally? My understanding is that he planned the attack largely by himself, but let's say that Al Qaeda or another group did plan the underwear attack, there are still individuals who carry out terrorists attacks on their own. Timothy McVeigh, along with a pal, carried out a attack without the aid of any group, though they were affiliated with several white separatist movements.

The Leader

Apr 4th, 2010, 11:15 AM

no shit thats why i mentioned about the pakistan people i know who talk shit about the us govts fopriegn policy but also condem suicide bombers and the tactics being used by their people. thats the exact opposite of with us or agaisnt us(tahts looking at both sides of a situation without being an idiot). these people in the middle east need to do the same. i work with these people and generally agree with them about our foriegn policy. but talking shit about israel as the sole cause of their problems and pretending that palestinians uphold human rights better is just absurd to me. i get my news from bbc which is def not pro israel but i can still be well read enough to know that the palestinians will never get anything they want if they keep fighting for the destruction of israel. the isralies atleast make an effort(like pulling back settlements) and not straight up bombing them entirely. most countries wouldnt put up a group of people next door to them calling for their destruction. they have arabs in their country who dont live as comfortable life but they arent treated the way a jew would be treated in palestine. i watched a documentary where i think a british reporter was killed by an israeli tank(obviously one of the problems of israel) while he waved a white flag but before that he was in a home with palestinians and they were teaching their kids that jews were dogs. They don't even know that most people driving tanks on their lands are mostly arabs. Their culture has a fundalmental problem with tolerance especially when it comes to women, different religions, or anything they dont fucking approve of. Denying that is insane and an insult to women and jewish people most of all. Israel has a problem maybe with their military tactics but i dont believe they have racism and hate seeping into their culture like a virus. thats my point. the jewish population on long island doesnt start killing muslims because the palestinians blow up cafes in israel. but for some reason many mulims blow themselves up because of the plight of the palestinians. if palestine could take over israel tomorrow and the terrorists in the middle east would just start fighting amongst themselves for power or concentrate on another group of people(russians maybe) they deem fit to kill. I just don't understand how people support modern day middle eastern culture. They routinely circumcise women as a punishment and teach their kids using only the koran. they are backwards culture compared to the western world.

even when the taliban was gone the men of afghanstan didnt suddenly start treating women like humans. the men are taught its ok to be an animal to women at a young age. thats not ok to me.
I don't think that it's ok, nor does anyone else here either. We are not discussing how to solve those issues, we are discussing terrorism, why it happens, and how to effectively combat it.

I don't know how these people are accepted or excused or explained by what seems like educated people. The culture has problems. Many have no naccess to information and are brainwashed since birth. If you think all their problems stem solely from us or israel then i think your wrong. this is the 21st century and women are still routinely subjected to honor killings by their families and we are suppose to want to understand that culture? i understand that its been perverted and is desperatly in need of reform or some sane people in power who are not still living in the 19th and early 20th century frame of mind.

if neo nazis started routinly doing the things being done in the middle east there would be an uproar and it wouldnt be tolerated for one second atleast in america. for some reason being muslim gives you a right to be a racist and treat women like dogs without being questioned.
You're so fucking stupid.:lol You're explaining it right there. They have problems. Sure, you're not going into detail or stating anything that could possibly help anyone but you're so simple minded that you can't even keep up with what me and Zhukov are posting about. You're like a juggalo version of coolinator, except what you believe is actually accepted by most people who aren't actually educated on terrorism.

kahljorn

Apr 4th, 2010, 03:18 PM

WHO ARE YOU RESPONDING TOO

Coolinator, Zhukov and ant?

kahljorn

Apr 4th, 2010, 03:33 PM

The Leader

Apr 4th, 2010, 04:32 PM

The Muslims because they're different.

The Leader

Apr 4th, 2010, 04:38 PM

Seriously, the Palestinians should just get over Israeli occupation. Sure they live walled in, treated as second class citizens but the Israelis are better than them because they're more like us so the Palestinians need to just shut the f*ck up.

The Leader

Apr 4th, 2010, 04:39 PM

Plus being humiliated and dominated by a foreign power isn't something people should fight about. Unless they're us. Then it's completely reasonable to kill people.

The Leader

Apr 4th, 2010, 04:44 PM

Most countries wouldn't put up with people occupying a piece of land which they used to own right next door, especially if it was important. Isn't that pretty much consistent throughout most cases of terrorism, too? Having had a part of your country occupied?
No man, it's cause they're a bunch of towel heads with their different kind of bible and churches that teach them how to make IED's (that improvised explosive device i heard about them on the bbc lol). If they were western they woudlnt' be doing none of this.

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 08:02 AM

I find it strange that you don't see the Palestinians as having genuine grievances not because you disagree with their historical claims (which, you do, but it's not your main reason) but because you consider their culture to be wrong (which it may be, but it's got nothing to do with their demands behind their struggle).

Or do people that treat women as second class citizens not deserve basic justice and human rights? Now who's the backwards barbarian?

Should the actual acts of a group legitimise their struggle? Or should the struggle simply legitimise itself? Take for example the various groups of Irish Republicans over the decades; mostly left wing, mostly progressive. They want social reform as well as their national freedom, but do they deserve it any more than the Palestinians, simply because their culture is different? (I too would say BETTER rather than DIFFERENT, but I don't have any qualms about appearing disdainful of backwards peoples). Rebublicans don't use suicide bombing, generally aren't religious - or it's not a requirement - and although nobody would be surprised to find quite a lot of hate for the occupiers, there is no hatred of the English people. Do the Irish deserve Northern Ireland more than the Palestinians deserve Palestine?

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 09:40 AM

Irony of the Day:

Israel has been waging a holocaust against the Palestinian people since its inception.

Can anyone say "war crimes"?

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 09:43 AM

Yeah, but it's ok because America supports them! :D

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 09:44 AM

Yeah, but it's ok because America supports them! :D

3 billion dollars a year + free weapons = A lot of dead innocent palestinians.

Wouldn't that be considered state sponsored terrorism? Hmmm

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 09:53 AM

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:01 AM

You don't hear about this in the news, but American soldiers actually train in Israel as part of their training. Not just training, but their training includes serving as a front line soldier. So America sends soldiers to kill Palestinians, basically.

See,

This is the big farce we've been discussing here.

We talk about "terrorism" and "terrorists" like theres actually this underground threat to civilized humanity while all the while we (The civilized nations) are bombing innocents, bulldozing their houses, provoking confrontations with disenfranchised individuals, and manipulating information to condition our own populations to believe it's a "JUST" war.

I call bullshit.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:05 AM

Dude, I've already posted that terrorism is carried out by non state actors while state terror is the equivalent when carried out by a recognized government.

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:11 AM

See,

This is the big farce we've been discussing here.

We talk about "terrorism" and "terrorists" like theres actually this underground threat to civilized humanity while all the while we (The civilized nations) are bombing innocents, bulldozing their houses, provoking confrontations with disenfranchised individuals, and manipulating information to condition our own populations to believe it's a "JUST" war.

I call bullshit.

Exactly. During the Tasmanian war the Australian government pumped millions not only into the Commonwealth military, but also into paramilitary groups whose sole purpose seemed to be the terrorising of the population. There was a scandal not long ago when the information finally got out, but people on the mainland didn't seem to care. It's just because we lost that we don't get to write the history books, and we were seen as the terrorists back then simply because we didn't have the funds to buy tanks and planes.

But you tell me, who is the terrorist if one side is shooting soldiers and the other side is shooting civilians?

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:13 AM

Terrorist isn't a bad word. You have to get away from that stigma.

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:14 AM

You just say that because you've never had to have your family gunned down with your eyes.

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:18 AM

You tell me that when you have an Israeli soldier literally gutting your new born baby inside your own home. THEN we will see if you think that.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:19 AM

It'd be an act of state terror. You become retarded too?

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:25 AM

When negotiating broke down in the mid 70s, Australia didn't hesitate to send in an overwhelming amount of military might to crush any resistance to the Crown. an OVERWHELMING amount. By anyones standards it was overkill. Tasmanians are still considered second class citizens, and it's very expensive to get a job nowadays. You might think that just because we are fighting without the recognition of the US (don't even get me STARTED on their involvement or how they are the real terrorists) that we are the terrorists. But you tell me, who are the terrorists when children are born in a supposedly first world country that literally cannot speak for the first months of their life because of Mainland sanctions against pregnant women.

Also, yes :lol

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:27 AM

But you tell me, who is the terrorist if one side is shooting soldiers and the other side is shooting civilians?

I think TheLeader has gone off the deep end. :lol

But back to your question,

The word "Terrorist" and "Terrorism" does not refer to the military tactic anymore. It's been turned into a label. If you're against the establishment (AKA - War, erosion of civil liberties, against Wallstreet) then you're labeled a terrorist. Meaning that you're the boogeyman. You're the "extremist" who isn't normal.

Who is the terrorists you ask? None of them. They are all pawns in a larger game. They are all funded by the same side and are meant to create a perpetual state of war.

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:38 AM

Basically the war was just another flash in the pan during the Cold War. That's how most people see it, anyhow. On one side there was the UK/US/AUS defending Crown land and western ideals, and on the other you had terrorists. But for people like me, my family and thousands of other Tasmanians, it's a reality that we have to live with. Officially, our state has given up it's aspirations for independence, but there are still many people that wont forgive or forget. Even today there are rebel groups that live in the remote bushlands, and while armed resistance is less popular today, there are areas where even the government are scared to fly their helicopters for fear of being shot down.

If you've never known the fear of walking down the street without being harassed simply for your ethnicity and beliefs, then you can't really comment The Leader.

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:40 AM

But you tell me, who are the terrorists when children are born in a supposedly first world country that literally cannot speak for the first months of their life because of Mainland sanctions against pregnant women.

What? :confused:

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:48 AM

What?

I know, it's horrible. Basically they make all milk imported into the state extremely cheap, and all milk production here is either shut down, or crippled to a point where it can't function. This means that all mothers feed their children with government supplied milk. Milk that has less vitamins, minerals and calcium, while having more chemicals such as ammonium and fluoride.

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:50 AM

And what Tasmanian war are you talking about? I only did a little looking around but the last war I was able to find involving Tasmania was "The Black War" where a bunch of Aborigines got killed. Sad story and all but thats not what your talking about is it?

And in what way are Tasmanians second class citizens? I didnt know you guys had it so bad.

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:55 AM

I know, it's horrible. Basically they make all milk imported into the state extremely cheap, and all milk production here is either shut down, or crippled to a point where it can't function. This means that all mothers feed their children with government supplied milk. Milk that has less vitamins, minerals and calcium, while having more chemicals such as ammonium and fluoride.

Breast feed? Do they not sell Similac there? By here do you just mean Tasmania or all of Australia too?

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 10:59 AM

while having more chemicals such as ammonium and fluoride.

I'm glad to see someone else knows about the dangers of fluoride. Here in the states peoples have been indoctrinated to believe it's actually good for them.:x

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 11:02 AM

Well you wont find anything on wikipedia or anything like that because it's all been removed. As you might know the Australian government controls the internet much like China does, so it's hard for a local person to set up a website about our history without coming to the attention of the authorities. So, no, our struggle isn't as widely known about as say the Palestinians or Irish.

Now, I am not saying that it's all bad, and that living here is comparable to living in Gaza or something, but you can certainly see the difference in living standards of those deemed mainlanders, and those deemed islanders. The government has extra taxes for Tasmanian businesses, which makes it hard to set one up in the first place, and all other Mainland run businesses will basically only choose local workers if they are given no other choice. We are paid less, receive less pensions, and usually have to pay more for rates. Mainlanders move here because there is a lot of cheap, fertile land, and they are given financial help to do so. It's too expensive for a local to own a house, so most people (I know someone that has a house, despite the cost and the lack of being able to loan from the bank) just rent from Mainland landlords.

That's not even starting on the unofficial harassment by groups of Mainlanders that can basically get away with beating you up, smashing your windows, and setting fire to your car. The police look the other way for them, but come down hard on Tasmanian kids spray painting anti-mainland slogans on walls.

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 11:15 AM

So what defines you as an islander opposed to a mainlander? Where you were born? How does anyone know without look at your records? Do you have to show that to people to get a job?

About the war still... Is it called "The Tasmanian War"? What year(s)?

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 11:24 AM

There are slight differences in the accent, but yes, it's your records that show you for who you are. You can't get a job without showing them. It used to be just 'place of birth' that would give you away, but now that so many Mainlanders are having children here it became hazy. Now it's just the supposedly 'random' numbers on your passport.

As for in day to day life, well it's only the accent that gives you away.

The 'war', to us it's called the Independence Struggle, to them it's the Tasmanian Rebellion. 1976-1987.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 11:58 AM

If you've never known the fear of walking down the street without being harassed simply for your ethnicity and beliefs, then you can't really comment The Leader.
Is this a response to the posts I made about Muslims which were satirizing Ant's posts?

Also your logic is flawed. You don't have to experience a event or problem first hand to study it and debate about it. You, like Ant, apparently cannot separate yourselves from events and look at them in a objective way. Nor can you distinguish between serious posts and mockery.:x

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 12:26 PM

I do understand your mistake though. It's not like those posts completely contradicted everything else that I have been writing in this thread, and they totally don't go against everything that I personally believe. And you can't really expect to find satire on a site with mockery in its name, so I totally understand where you're coming from.

Here's an idea, because you're so conscious about the plight of Tasmania, why don't you do some volunteer work to help save the Tasmanian tiger? Oh wait, too late. They're all dead. Way to fuck that one up, white man. Yeah, go cry about Australia abusing you, you can't even keep a fucking animal from going extinct. And your fight for independence is sooo much more important that the europeanization and genocide of aboriginals. You ignorant fuck, you thought you knew suffering?

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 01:23 PM

Aborigines: Modernize or perish.

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:00 PM

This is bullshit. You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can comment on an event and it's aftermath that you don't even know about. Rebel groups LIVE and TRAIN alongside aboriginals in the bush. We live off the land and are it's protectors, while the government just looks to exploit it.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:01 PM

YOU ARE A LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF THIS? NONE. ANY PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES? ANY DOCUMENTARIES? NO.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:03 PM

Everything you are talking about is the white man's fault and you are a white man. So why don't you just take your mayonnaise and go back to Britain?

Zhukov

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:08 PM

:lol Yeah, nice arguing. I can see why The Coolinator gets so infuriated with you. First of all I don't know if you have seen any photos I have posted here, but I am not a 'white man'. That is part of the institutionalised harassment; my people and I are slightly darker skinned than that of regular Australians. This is because of our stronger connections to The Land and our history of inter-species relationships with aborigines that dates back for thousands of years.

As far as evidence is concerned, I can't provide you with any solid facts, like I said, the internet here is basically owned by the government. If you had to live with anything like that then maybe you would know what I am talking about, so I can't provide you with science or theories. If that doesn't suit your right wing agenda then tough. This is the real world and I can't provide links all the time, only the truth and conviction in what I am saying.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:13 PM

First of all I don't know if you have seen any photos I have posted here, but I am not a 'white man'. That is part of the institutionalised harassment; my people and I are slightly darker skinned than that of regular Australians.
So are Spaniards but that doesn't stop them from oppressing Equatorial Guinea.

As far as evidence is concerned, I can't provide you with any solid facts, like I said, the internet here is basically owned by the government. If you had to live with anything like that then maybe you would know what I am talking about, so I can't provide you with science or theories. If that doesn't suit your right wing agenda then tough. This is the real world and I can't provide links all the time, only the truth and conviction in what I am saying.
Bullshit, you can't provide evidence because you are just trying to dodge the fact that you have completely destroyed Tasmania's eco system and forced the aboriginals off of their native lands. You are the oppressors, not the oppressed.

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:22 PM

Bullshit, you can't provide evidence because you are just trying to dodge the fact that you have completely destroyed Tasmania's eco system and forced the aboriginals off of their native lands. You are the oppressors, not the oppressed.

Actually the British did that back in the 1800s.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 02:28 PM

Shut up.

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 03:03 PM

Shut up.

You really don't know anything do you Leader?

Oh, and does anyone else get the mental picture of a garden hose shooting out raw sewage every time TheLeader posts something? I guess it's just me.....:|

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 03:04 PM

Don't you have anything more meaningful to post?

Come on, show us the path to truth!!!

TheCoolinator

Apr 5th, 2010, 03:48 PM

Come on, show us the path to truth!!!

Read the article I posted on how Chechen Terror Envoy Ilyas Akhmadov is being funded by the USA. There is where your journey begins.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 03:52 PM

Of course, another article about something that either I already know and/or that you are too stupid to summarize yourself.

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 03:56 PM

Here is an article that proves what the US is really up to.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60567/pg1

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 03:59 PM

LIES ALL OF THEM LIES DIMNOS YOU STUPID FUCK YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT OR TERRORISM OR ANYTHING

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 04:09 PM

ALL IM SAYING IS ITS AN ARTICLE FOUND ON THE INTERNET SO THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE. WHY WONT YOU BELIEVE ME IN THE FACE OF SUCH IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE?! >:

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 04:17 PM

STOP LYING YOU MADE THAT WEBPAGE DIDN'T YOU

Dimnos

Apr 5th, 2010, 04:29 PM

NO! IT WAS DONE BY THE LEADING LEADERS OF THE CONSPIRACY COMUNITY AND PEER REVIEWED BY TOP NUT JOBS BELIEVERS. I CAN ONLY DREAM OF ONE DAY HAVING THEIR CREDENTIALS.

The Leader

Apr 5th, 2010, 04:45 PM

Well, I guess that's believable.

kahljorn

Apr 5th, 2010, 07:13 PM

You just say that because you've never had to have your family gunned down with your eyes.man i don't think i would hate terrorists if they gave me laser gun eyes :O

unless it was like a curse where i couldn't see and if i shot the guns my face would explode :(

Ant10708

Apr 7th, 2010, 04:05 AM

So, no, our struggle isn't as widely known about as say the Palestinians or Irish.

You guys need to start blowing some civilians up if you want to get noticed in today's world.

Ant10708

Apr 7th, 2010, 04:28 AM

nevermind why bother

Zhukov

Apr 7th, 2010, 11:04 AM

Jesus The Leader get a grip man.

This is a bomb blast that happened just down from where I live now. It was a long time ago though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00118/TROUBLEPA_118181t.jpg

The Leader

Apr 7th, 2010, 12:03 PM

It wouldn't have happened if you hadn't of taken their land!

Zhukov

Apr 7th, 2010, 12:41 PM

How many times do I have to tell you? Don't you listen? We are on THEIR side. The Aborigines and us are on the same side, the government treats us both indecently. Many aboriginal people died in the fighting, and that was because they were side by side with the so called 'terrorists'. It is all self defence. Self defence from your so called "state terrorism" - which is just a bullshit word to protect those that are doing the terrorising.

The Leader

Apr 7th, 2010, 01:27 PM

So you support terrorism then.

Zhukov

Apr 7th, 2010, 01:32 PM

See this is my problem with you, you can't see outside of your own comfortable view of the world. You just don't get it that the real terrorists are the government that are literally killing people. Anyone who voices out against that in your view is just a terrorist. People like you DESERVE to be bombed.

The Leader

Apr 7th, 2010, 01:48 PM

If you don't like then stop being a terrorist.

Zhukov

Apr 7th, 2010, 01:49 PM

In the cold hard world of reality I think you will find that you are the terrorist.

The Leader

Apr 7th, 2010, 01:51 PM

We're terrorists because you're terrorists so stop being terrorists if you don't like us being terrorists.

Tadao

Apr 7th, 2010, 02:35 PM

I'M ABOUT TO TERRORIZE YOU FUCKERS WITH MY PENIS

kahljorn

Apr 7th, 2010, 03:06 PM

in australia even small boobs are terrorists :O

The Leader

Apr 7th, 2010, 05:13 PM

nevermind why bother
I missed this post. Let my tell you why: Because by continuing the debate with "I don't understand people like you Leader" you can prove that we shouldn't study terrorism but just blow shit up.

I hope this helps.

TheCoolinator

Apr 8th, 2010, 03:39 PM

So you support terrorism then.

It's sad that TheLeader still uses the word "terrorists" and "terrorism" like it actually means anything.

I attempted to explain it to him in a very rudimentary way but he /she seems to have a mental blockage that won't allow reality to seep through. It may be a pride thing.

Dimnos

Apr 8th, 2010, 03:42 PM

Like it actually means anything? Isnt it the subject of this conversation for the last handful of pages?

The Leader

Apr 8th, 2010, 06:06 PM

It's sad that TheLeader still uses the word "terrorists" and "terrorism" like it actually means anything.

I attempted to explain it to him in a very rudimentary way but he /she seems to have a mental blockage that won't allow reality to seep through. It may be a pride thing.
It means as much as any other word. I use it based on a definition which I posted to clarify my usage and I use that definition to apply it to individuals or groups without bias or prejudice. As a wise man once wrote: "Coolie doesn't listen unless you agree with him." You can't even pick up on when I'm joking and when I'm being serious. You really can't expect to be able to have a conversation with me if you can't keep up with such things.

And you never replied to my pm, you condescending prude. >:

Zhukov

Apr 9th, 2010, 05:19 AM

Generally I think you can only be an expert on a subject or situation if you have first hand accounts of such things, like being there when the world trade center in New York was attacked, or knowing what it feels like to live behind the Iron Curtain, or in North Korea. Or to be an ethnic minority in a place that subjects you to harassment.

Some people try to talk outside of their league. Maybe read a few articles or see a TV show, and then suddenly they are an expert. The Leader, you say you are 'writing a paper' on terrorism, but you seem to not only know nothing about your subject matter, but even worse, you sound as if you think you know better than people that HAVE had first hand experiences such as myself.

Then there are a few people who, despite not having first hand experiences with things like "terrorism" (or at least what the government calls terrorism these days) seem to have a profound knowledge and understanding of not only the facts, but the emotions behind it. I will leave you guys to ponder on who that may be in this thread.

The Leader

Apr 9th, 2010, 12:10 PM

Pssh, like the opinion of someone who supports terrorism matters. :rolleyes

The Leader

Apr 10th, 2010, 09:43 PM

I think that people like ant cause a lot of these problems in the world. Mostly because he's just so fucking fat.

Ant10708

Apr 11th, 2010, 08:32 AM

I'm not fat at all despite my love for bacon. I could stand to gain some weight but now I am afraid to because it might result in more suicide bombings.

The Leader

Apr 11th, 2010, 12:09 PM

I thought your shirt size was like xxl or something.

Ant10708

Apr 11th, 2010, 12:30 PM

lol wow its scary and pathetic that you would even try to remember my shirt size. no i told those people i bought a concert shirt from, that you trolls searched out assuming this is where u get ur facts on my shirt size, that i'd take any shirt size. i wear a shirt size medium if i want the shirt to fit like a normal person wears clothes or buy a large if i think the shirt will shrink in the wash. If i wore an xxl I could probaly have three suicide vests on without the shirt getting tight.

by the way, defiantly a good way to derail the thread just when the Australian was calling you out for being a moron

The Leader

Apr 11th, 2010, 12:32 PM

Why do you never reply to posts like that? :(

Ant10708

Apr 11th, 2010, 12:39 PM

because you are a moron :(

The Leader

Apr 11th, 2010, 12:40 PM

Everyone thinks you're fat! This is horrible! I can't even remember all of the nicknames given to you.

Colonel Flagg

Apr 11th, 2010, 10:13 PM

Anyone here want to buy some WOWGOLD?

Fathom Zero

Apr 11th, 2010, 10:35 PM

:lol

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 09:01 AM

Like it actually means anything? Isnt it the subject of this conversation for the last handful of pages?

Once you come to the realization that all "terrorism" or hostility in general is either state sponsored, provoked by state agencies, or is in retaliation to unbridled state control, you will start to understand that the word "terrorist / terrorism" is nothing more then a label placed on undesirables.

I.E. anyone who is a dupe or challenges the established oligarchical order.

Terrorism = The New Enemy figure

Terrorism = The new Boogeyman

Terrorism = The fake enemy

Any questions?

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 12:14 PM

Uh, terrorism is just a term used to help differentiate between actors. What you write is true when you look at a lot of media and people who are not familiar with terrorism studies and such, like many politicians, but the term isn't actually some judgemental thing. The US has supported terrorists and the reason that some terrorists target the US is because they feel that the US is a aggressor or supporter of a agressor. Not that you'll pay attention to this post because it doesn't completely agree with what your opinion is aside from the fundamental idea that terrorism is often used as a empty word, so clearly there is absolutely nothing of value here and you should probably just post another link to an article that presents basic information that even Palin knows. It should go without saying that the tone of the post must be condescending.

Colonel Flagg

Apr 12th, 2010, 12:52 PM

Leader, Leader Leader. Time to grow up, stop being naïve already.

You obviously still can't come to grips with the basic truth that THE US IS A STATE WHICH SPONSORS TERRORISM. (see, I typed in ALL CAPS so it must be true) If you don't believe me, read the link posted a few short pages ago:

Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”

http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-...hen-terrorism/ (http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-campaign-linked-to-chechen-terrorism/)

Keep listening to me, and eventually you will agree that I am right and you are wrong.

And don't listen to that Flagg person. He's an idiot.

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 01:12 PM

Uh, terrorism is just a term used to help differentiate between actors.

I hope by actors you mean synthetic agents and or Provocateurs

What you write is true when you look at a lot of media and people who are not familiar with terrorism studies and such, like many politicians, but the term isn't actually some judgemental thing.

Most army veterans who are against the war are now consider a "terror" threat similar to pro-liberty groups in America. In police handbooks they tell them that property rights activists and constitutionalists may be home grown "terrorists"

Youtube it. They have recordings of news broadcasts that cover the key talking points of mass paranoia.

The US has supported terrorists and the reason that some terrorists target the US is because they feel that the US is a aggressor or supporter of a agressor.

By terrorists do you mean innocent civilians? Because that's what the American public is told who the "terrorists" are. Most individuals fightings the coalition are people who've had family killed in bombing raids or who've lost everything because of the illegal war / occupation.

There are no such thing as terrorists. There are poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for-profit corporations.

Blah, blah, blah, passive aggressive comment.

Ok.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 02:26 PM

I hope by actors you mean synthetic agents and or Provocateurs
No, I mean people or groups who are somehow involved. If it's a state using terror, attacking noncombattants and all of that good stuff, then it would be state terror. The reason state terror and terrorism are distinguished from one another is that both diverge from what is accepted as conventional war, and state actors have to be dealt with differently than non state actors, not only because of resources and law but because the motivations, as you point out, are different.

Most army veterans who are against the war are now consider a "terror" threat similar to pro-liberty groups in America. In police handbooks they tell them that property rights activists and constitutionalists may be home grown "terrorists"

Youtube it. They have recordings of news broadcasts that cover the key talking points of mass paranoia.
Ok, yeah, it's not as simple as that

By terrorists do you mean innocent civilians? Because that's what the American public is told who the "terrorists" are. Most individuals fightings the coalition are people who've had family killed in bombing raids or who've lost everything because of the illegal war / occupation.
Yes, if you consider someone who takes up arms completely "innocent", though I think that's the wrong word to describe it.

There are no such thing as terrorists. There are poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for-profit corporations.
Yes, there is such a thing as terrorists. Just because you sympathize with someone doesn't mean that they are not a terrorist. As I have written before, terrorists are not automatically bad guys. Also many terrorists are not poor, you're overgeneralizing things. In fact you seem to be only talking about terrorists in the global south. The Red Army Faction were West German marxists attempting to end their countries support of the United States and its military excursions in Vietnam. The Weather Underground were college kids. And terrorists groups don't just target imperialism. There are terrorists groups which are pro government and many groups are state supported, though those groups have largely gone by the wayside.

Ok.
You didn't do it.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 02:40 PM

You obviously still can't come to grips with the basic truth that THE US IS A STATE WHICH SPONSORS TERRORISM.
We actually have. :\

And don't listen to that Flagg person. He's an idiot.
I know right? Thinks that he knows everything ever just because he has some stupid science degree paper. That shit doesn't matter, this is the real world, not a classroom.

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 03:01 PM

No, I mean people or groups who are somehow involved. If it's a state using terror, attacking noncombattants and all of that good stuff, then it would be state terror. The reason state terror and terrorism are distinguished from one another is that both diverge from what is accepted as conventional war, and state actors have to be dealt with differently than non state actors, not only because of resources and law but because the motivations, as you point out, are different.

In my research 9 out of 10 times it's government funded, provoked, or allowed to take place. Most of these "terrorist" boogeymen are known about or hired. The examples that the media use to label terrorist or terrorist states are mass propoganda to create a feeling of fear, anger, xenophobia, and paranoia.

Look up Webster Tarpley on google video. He has a few great lectures on false falg terror you should watch.

Ok, yeah, it's not as simple as that

Is that all you got? You said the term terrorism isn't used as a judgmental label yet you don't acknowledge the everyday use of the word to villify normal citizens?

YouTube the phrase home grown terrorists.

Yes, if you consider someone who takes up arms completely "innocent", though I think that's the wrong word to describe it.

You need to watch Iraq for Sale and No end in sight. Terrorstorm is a good one as well. It's all free on google video. Also Occupation 101 is another good one you should watch. All free.

Yes, there is such a thing as terrorists. Just because you sympathize with someone doesn't mean that they are not a terrorist. As I have written before, terrorists are not automatically bad guys. Also many terrorists are not poor, you're overgeneralizing things. In fact you seem to be only talking about terrorists in the global south. The Red Army Faction were West German marxists attempting to end their countries support of the United States and its military excursions in Vietnam. The Weather Underground were college kids. And terrorists groups don't just target imperialism. There are terrorists groups which are pro government and many groups are state supported, though those groups have largely gone by the wayside.

1. The Red army faction was funded by the state.

2. The Weather Underground was funded by the Ford Foundation.

Private / Governmental agencies fund synthetic "terror" attacks on the population. It's a very old story.

and I don't sympathize with anyone. Look at the war objectively.

Illegal occupation, bombing of innocents, looting of the natural resources.

^ Imperialistic tendencies.

Are people who fight imperialistic powers "Terrorists"? I highly doubt that anyone would admit it and as I stated above the groups you named were well off because they were getting private / state funding. It's right out there in the open.

There is no such thing as modern terrorism.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 03:22 PM

In my research 9 out of 10 times it's government funded, provoked, or allowed to take place. Most of these "terrorist" boogeymen are known about or hired. The examples that the media use to label terrorist or terrorist states are mass propoganda to create a feeling of fear, anger, xenophobia, and paranoia.
So basically 9 times out of 10 a government is somehow involved... Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that. I don't think most terrorists are known about individually. If you're referring to groups, then yes, but individuals, no as groups need to be constantly recruiting and an advantage of terrorism is that terrorists look like everyone else.

Is that all you got? You said the term terrorism isn't used as a judgmental label yet you don't acknowledge the everyday use of the word to villify normal citizens?

YouTube the phrase home grown terrorists.
I never said that it never ever is used as a judgemental label, I wrote that it should not be used as one and that anyone who knows anything about it does not use it as such. You're so stooped in your narcissistic paranoia that you can't even tell when someone is agreeing with you.

You need to watch Iraq for Sale and No end in sight. Terrorstorm is a good one as well. It's all free on google video. Also Occupation 101 is another good one you should watch. All free.
No, you should be able to explain things by yourself. You don't need to send me links to movies that say things that I already know or have already seen.

1. The Red army faction was funded by the state.

2. The Weather Underground was funded by the Ford Foundation.

Private / Governmental agencies fund synthetic "terror" attacks on the population. It's a very old story.
What state funded the Red Army faction and how were the Weather Underground funded by the Ford Foundation?

and I don't sympathize with anyone. Look at the war objectively.

Illegal occupation, bombing of innocents, looting of the natural resources.

^ Imperialistic tendencies.

Are people who fight imperialistic powers "Terrorists"? I highly doubt that anyone would admit it and as I stated above the groups you named were well off because they were getting private / state funding. It's right out there in the open.

There is no such thing as modern terrorism.
I think that it is pretty clear that you sympathize with anyone who is against the US government. And yes, terrorists groups often fight against imperialism. People who study terrorism know that. Politicians and officials who don't have their heads up their asses know that. The groups that I named were self funded. One of the ways that the Red Army Faction acquired money was through bank robberies. If they were getting funding from somewhere else they would not rob banks. Those kind of operations are incredibly risky and are barely worth the money gained so if they had a large amount of funding from a government they would not engage in such action.
You wrote terrorists were poor. I pointed out that there have been terrorists who came from middle class backgrounds. That does not influence the funding of terrorist groups unless members donate their own money.

Colonel Flagg

Apr 12th, 2010, 03:45 PM

I know right? Thinks that he knows everything ever just because he has some stupid science degree paper. That shit doesn't matter, this is the real world, not a classroom.

Damned right! >:

Youtube it.

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:19 PM

So basically 9 times out of 10 a government is somehow involved... Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that.

Ok, then why do you still keep calling it "terrorism" when the more correct term would be state sponsored false flag attacks?

I don't think most terrorists are known about individually.

You need to watch Webster Tarpley's lecture on state sponsored terror.

I never said that it never ever is used as a judgemental label, I wrote that it should not be used as one and that anyone who knows anything about it does not use it as such.

No and No, you said....

"What you write is true when you look at a lot of media and people who are not familiar with terrorism studies and such, like many politicians, but the term isn't actually some judgemental thing."

Yes it is. If you are against the established oligarchy then you are branded a terrorist. Please look up "home grown terrorism". Anyone who challenges authority is now a threat.

They know exactly how to use this word. It's to train people to think everything is terrorism.

No, you should be able to explain things by yourself.

Like our previous conversations you seem to have trouble understanding the simplicity of the situation. Please watch those videos and learn. This is all common knowledge I'm telling you. There is nothing new under the sun.

What state funded the Red Army faction and how were the Weather Underground funded by the Ford Foundation?

Who do you think gave money to the Red Army Faction and who does Bill Ayres work for today?

I think that it is pretty clear that you sympathize with anyone who is against the US government. And yes, terrorists groups often fight against imperialism. People who study terrorism know that. Politicians and officials who don't have their heads up their asses know that. The groups that I named were self funded. One of the ways that the Red Army Faction acquired money was through bank robberies. If they were getting funding from somewhere else they would not rob banks. Those kind of operations are incredibly risky and are barely worth the money gained so if they had a large amount of funding from a government they would not engage in such action.

You wrote terrorists were poor. I pointed out that there have been terrorists who came from middle class backgrounds. That does not influence the funding of terrorist groups unless members donate their own money.

Your logic is very strange.

Illegal war for profit + killing of civilians + looting of natural resources = Creates anti-imperialistic forces.

They are not terrorists. Terrorists don't exist.

Back to the Red Army faction.....who do you think was funding them? Themselves? I highly doubt it.

and back to the Weather Underground.....FBI COINTEL was at work radicalizing the group. Happened to numerous groups back in the 60's-70's.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:30 PM

I'm not surprised that you can't follow my logic. You have to understand my posts first.

Who do you think gave money to the Red Army Faction and who does Bill Ayres work for today?

Your logic is very strange.
So you don't know who gave the Red Army Faction money, but you know someone did and because Bill Ayres works for the Ford Foundation now means that they supported the Weather Underground 40 years ago back when they were accused of being a pawn of the US government? IRONY

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:33 PM

Back to the Red Army faction.....who do you think was funding them? Themselves? I highly doubt it.
And I love this. Yeah, because we all know how expensive food, firearms, ammunition and various household and industrial chemicals are and how difficult they are to find.

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:34 PM

And I love this. Yeah, because we all know how expensive food, firearms, ammunition and various household and industrial chemicals are and how difficult they are to find.

I think you just answered your own question.

I'm not surprised that you can't follow my logic. You have to understand my posts first.

You need to watch the Webster Tarpley state sponsored terror lecture on google video. It will help you understand.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:39 PM

I think you just answered your own question.

You need to watch the Webster Tarpley state sponsored terror lecture on google video. It will help you understand.
I understand state sponsored terrorism. I understand everything that you've posted. You just don't understand my posts or what the difference is between our opinions.

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:42 PM

I understand state sponsored terrorism. I understand everything that you've posted. You just don't understand my posts or what the difference is between our opinions.

I think the best course of action for you is to watch the Webster Tarpley State Sponsored False flag terror video and then move to Richard Gages presentation on 9/11.

Then after that you can have your pick of any of the following.

Iraq for Sale
No End in Sight
Money Masters
Occupation 101
TerrorStorm
Beyond Treason

Very educational videos. This will help you.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:45 PM

I understand state sponsored terrorism. I understand everything that you've posted. You just don't understand my posts or what the difference is between our opinions.
I think the best course of action for you is to watch the Webster Tarpley State Sponsored False flag terror video and then move to Richard Gages presentation on 9/11.

Then after that you can have your pick of any of the following.

Iraq for Sale
No End in Sight
Money Masters
Occupation 101
TerrorStorm
Beyond Treason

Very educational videos. This will help you.

:lol

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:46 PM

:x

Ok,

Stay a pawn. Not my problem. :sleep

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 04:49 PM

Ok,

Stay a pawn. No my problem. :sleep
:lol You're such a self righteous douche. You think that documentaries are enough to change someone's interpretation of reality? I was surprised that you caught on that something was amiss when I messaged you asking if you had aspergers, though you thought I asked it for some asinine reason. Seriously, I'm not trying to make fun of you when I ask this, and I have asked it before: do you have apsergers or another illness which may impact the way you interpret the intentions of others?

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 08:55 PM

mindless blabber

No.

Here is the link. Check it out. It will do you good. :sleep

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2699841318334319800#

Colonel Flagg

Apr 12th, 2010, 08:59 PM

mindless blabber

Uh, Coolie my boy, I think you misquoted Leader:

:lol You're such a self righteous douche.

That's better. :)

EDIT: Odds are Coolie won't even see this, since he probably has me on "ignore". :)

TheCoolinator

Apr 12th, 2010, 09:03 PM

Uh, Coolie my boy, I think you misquoted Leader:

You have one of them there "Degrees" right, Colonel?

Try to disprove Webster Tarpley. I'd like to see you try without having one of your trademark tantrums. :lol

Colonel Flagg

Apr 12th, 2010, 09:06 PM

I wouldn't evern dream of trying, since even if I did you'd ignore the facts since it didn't fit your worldview.

Keep wearing that tinfoil hat, big guy. :)

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 09:18 PM

No.

Here is the link. Check it out. It will do you good. :sleep

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2699841318334319800#
I've watched it. I felt my iq dropping as it went on. Dude, face it, you can't even figure out what sub forums to post a thread in and you definitely can't even begin to comprehend my posts. Just give up, I'm too smart for a aspie like you.

The Leader

Apr 12th, 2010, 09:42 PM

I just realized something, if Coolie hates the US government so much then why does he continue to support its terror by paying the very taxes that fund its imperialistic domination of the earth?

Pentegarn

Apr 12th, 2010, 11:03 PM

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q1/Pentegarn/images-22.jpg

This means something.... this is important

Fathom Zero

Apr 12th, 2010, 11:11 PM

d4MqTCIDKhU

Ant10708

Apr 13th, 2010, 07:35 AM

There are no such thing as terrorists. There are poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for-profit corporations.

lol. So the people who attacked India where just poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for profit corporations? weird. How can you idiots not see its somewhere in the middle? Yes alot of the 'terrorists' are people who lost family members from unjust wars but that is not the only type of person blowing themselves up or atleast financing the suicide bombers. The people who lost family members are usually exploited by the real 'terrorists' who want to inflict carnage on a mass scale. This whole idea of losing family members doesn't even apply to the people like Bin laden who had their own family and country disown him for his actions.

This is from a real expert(not someone writing a term paper or watching biased documentaries) who has actually interviewed so called "black widows" in russia.

"Yet it was by no means a simple act of revenge, say Speckhard and other experts, insisting it is wrong to imagine the Black Widows as loyal widows seeking justice. (Sharipova's(one of the moscow suicide bombers) husband is believed to still be alive.) The women are in reality the products of a sophisticated process of indoctrination with deep roots in the North Caucasus, where a less conservative form of Islam has meant insurgents have few qualms about using women in their attacks. "The women who take part in terrorism do it not out of their own desire or willingness but because they are manipulated. They are given no other choice," says Yulia Yuzik, who has interviewed scores of Black Widows and their relatives in the Caucasus for her book Nevesty Allakhy (Brides of Allah).

Yuzik says the recruitment process usually begins when a loved one collaborates with insurgents and then gets killed or persecuted by Russian forces. The family is often ostracized by other members of their community, who are desperate to avoid persecution themselves, Yuzik says. "The community that welcomes you after that is the Islamist one. There you find self-respect. You are called a sister. You go to pray with them, socialize with them, and you integrate into these groups based around Islam. That in itself serves as a kind of counterforce to the security regime, a way of expressing grief and frustration."

Extremists within the community, however, can then begin to turn these emotions to the ends of terrorism, usually after an order comes down from insurgents in the mountains to prepare a suicide bomber. There are dozens of these Black Widows in the making at any given time, Yuzik says, so the Moscow subway bombings cannot simply be connected to the death of Abdurakhmanova's husband. Rather, she happened to be at the right point in the process of indoctrination when the order came down. "Once the Islamist community begins insisting you martyr yourself, they do not let up. They will pursue you forever, and you have nowhere else to go. That is the trap."

Women in such circumstances, says Speckhard, tend to be recruited because they are in search of "psychological first aid." Working most often over the Internet, the recruiters play the role of a father to women left vulnerable by abuse or other trauma. "To an extent it does help them. It's like a drug. It's short-lived. It gives you relief, but it's not a solution. And just like a drug addiction, it often ends tragically," says Speckhard, who has interviewed more than 300 perpetrators of terrorism, their victims and their loved ones for her book Talking to Terrorists.

Considering these two experts actually know what they are talking about and have actually interviewed people directly involved, I think I will take their view on things opposed to yours coolinator or leaders. If you don't realize that the real thugs are brainwashing and exploiting innocent people to commit acts of violence then you are really ignorant. Its not, for the most part, a just form of resistance against the evil western powers and legitimate payback for all the suffering they have been through.

You can argue with the experts if you like.

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 08:52 AM

I just realized something, if Coolie hates the US government so much then why does he continue to support its terror by paying the very taxes that fund its imperialistic domination of the earth?

I've never said I hated anyone. I just told the truth about what private imperialistic countries do. If you assume I dislike them because of the examples I've given then it may not be that I "hate" them necessarily, more that your finally seeing whats going on and the first conclusion you draw is the feeling of dislike for the states I've been talking about.

I.E. Anglo-American interests.

lol. So the people who attacked India where just poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for profit corporations?

No,

Those were state sponsored terrorists. It was a false flag attack AND an assassination all in one. They needed to bump off one of the chiefs of police while staging an attack create tension between India and Pakistan.

There are no terrorists. It's fake. It's like communism.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 11:38 AM

lol. So the people who attacked India where just poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for profit corporations? weird. How can you idiots not see its somewhere in the middle?
So you're retracting what you wrote earlier and now think that studies and experts are actually credible? Wow, you've come a long way from thinking that people shouldn't actually try to understand terrorism. Too bad you still don't know how to write a case study, though. Credible sources? What?

If you assume I dislike them because of the examples I've given then it may not be that I "hate" them necessarily, more that your finally seeing whats going on and the first conclusion you draw is the feeling of dislike for the states I've been talking about.
You haven't comprehended any of my posts. At all. The reason isn't because we ever disagreed on basic principles, but because I wasn't writing in the exact same way that you were. You're a follower, coolie. What's sad about it is that you have become one while tying not to be one. Your posts are almost verbatim what better known proponents of your opinions say or write. Like Ant, you cannot wrap your head around my posts but while the reason Ant can't understand is because of his lack of intelligence, your reason is sheer arrogance. You view the world as being against you and I'm amazed at how you disregard everything that I write, even when most of what I'm writing falls in line with your same thinking. The only reason I can conceive that would explain why you do this is because your views, or rather the views of those who you idolize, have been turned into dogma in your mind. You are the weakest of pawns, never questioning or exploring your own side of the argument, only blocking out opposition views.

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 12:01 PM

Playing doctor...

I know it's fun to psycho analyze people but your last post is irrelevant to the conversation.

I'm just telling you....over and over again I may add..... that state sponsored terror is the only terrorism that exists in modern times. None of the alledged terrorists have the capabilities to carry out their objectives without help from a government (US / Britain) either physically, mentally, or financially.

You can go on and on about me being a "follower" or adhering to zealous acts but when the day is done all I've been discussing here is blatant reality that can be found at any time from any computer terminal around the globe.

Like I said previously. Start with Webster Tarpley. He's a very rational man.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 12:05 PM

Like I said previously. Start with Webster Tarpley. He's a very rational man.
This is my point.

Also you don't seem to account for any terrorism that has nothing to do with the United States or the UK, such as the Tamil Tigers or those wacky Algerians. Car bombs are not expensive.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 12:11 PM

Also I'm harder to convince than you. It takes more than some youtube videos and lectures by questionable individuals to convince me that terrorists themselves lie about how they carry out attacks and who funds them.

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:06 PM

This is my point.

Also you don't seem to account for any terrorism that has nothing to do with the United States or the UK, such as the Tamil Tigers or those wacky Algerians. Car bombs are not expensive.

Trio who funded Tamil Tigers walks free:

"The Tamil Tigers are recognised as a terrorist organisation overseas but not in Australia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/31/2861474.htm

Trio who funded Tamil Tigers walks free

"I would not go so far as saying that your aims were entirely humanitarian. But I do accept that they were not purposely to assist terrorist activity,"

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7007616/trio-who-funded-tamil-tigers-walks-free (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7007616/trio-who-funded-tamil-tigers-walks-free)

Cough* Cough* I wonder what would've happened if these guys weren't being blatantly protected by the Australian government. Probably life in prison.

Also I'm harder to convince than you.

I'm not trying to convince anyone anything. It's impossible to convince someone something that doesn't want or isn't ready to believe it. Hopefully things will come together for you in time.

"They do not want to believe because they do not wish it to be"

Colonel Flagg

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:19 PM

[...] It's impossible to convince someone something that doesn't want or isn't ready to believe it.

Hmmm. Sound like anyone we know?

Hopefully things will come together for you in time.

:bestthread

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:27 PM

Cough* Cough* I wonder what would've happened if these guys weren't being blatantly protected by the Australian government. Probably life in prison.
So Australia was funding the Tamil Tigers then?

I'm not trying to convince anyone anything. It's impossible to convince someone something that doesn't want or isn't ready to believe it. Hopefully things will come together for you in time.

"They do not want to believe because they do not wish it to be"
Wait, why are you talking about yourself? Shouldn't you at least be doing it in the third person?

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:31 PM

So Australia was funding the Tamil Tigers then?

What part of Anglo-American Imperialism don't you understand? :lol Australia is still the Queen's land isn't it?:confused:

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:33 PM

Do you have any proof of actual funding or just sympathizing?

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:34 PM

Do you have any proof of actual funding or just sympathizing?

If this "trio" wasn't blatantly protected by the Australia government, what do you think would've happened to them?

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:38 PM

So you don't have any proof that the Australian government funded the Tamil Tigers and your entire analysis of terrorism is based on speculation which often contradicts studies, personal accounts, government reports and what terrorist groups themselves claim? ASTONISHING

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:40 PM

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:41 PM

I asked first, but you couldn't provide an answer and instead tried to change the focus of the conversation. Why should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine?

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:44 PM

I asked first, but you couldn't provide an answer and instead tried to change the focus of the conversation. Why should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine?

I answered your question with my question...your turn. :sleep

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:50 PM

So your logic is that because an Australian judge reduced the charges of three people, who provided funding to the Tamil Tigers for humanitarian reasons during a cease fire, from supporting a terrorist group to supporting a separatist groups is evidence that the Australian government supported the Tamil Tigers? That's not proof. It would be credible if you could show an order came down from a head of government letting the guys off the hook or if you could show that there was a transfer of arms and money to the LTTE from accounts controlled by the Australian government but you don't have that. What you have is speculation built on how you perceive the world as opposed to facts.

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:53 PM

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

If this "trio" wasn't blatantly protected by the Australia government, what do you think would've happened to them?

I think the question stands, what would've happened to these 3 people if they weren't being protected by the government?

My answer would be very, very, long prison terms.

If your going to wait for the State to come out and say "Yes, we sponsor terrorists" then your going to be waiting a very long time.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:55 PM

That has nothing to do with my question. You never answered my question because you have no answer to it. You have no evidence to support your arguments. All you can do is try to dance around the holes in your theories.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 02:57 PM

Not only that but you apparently don't know much about Norway. Of course they aren't Anglo nor are they American, so I guess according to you they aren't a supporter or terrorism.

Zhukov

Apr 13th, 2010, 03:02 PM

The Australian government did not fund or support the Tamil Tigers in any way. Tamil refugees are not even classed as such when they flee Sri Lanka and get to our borders.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 03:03 PM

:lol

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 03:10 PM

The Australian government did not fund or support the Tamil Tigers in any way. Tamil refugees are not even classed as such when they flee Sri Lanka and get to our borders.

Anglo-American interest's fund terrorist groups. Does no one here find anything wrong or strange that funders of a group that preforms suicide bombing raids has been freed?

No one finds this strange at all that the Tamil Tigers attack was blamed on Pakistan to fan the flames between India and Pakistan?

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 03:12 PM

The idea was that they were providing humanitarian aid, and the article you linked to even mentioned that those funds were sent during a cease fire.

I wasn't aware that Pakistan was blamed for anything that the LTTE had done. Couldja give me a link to that?
edit: Unless it was the Indian government that claimed it. Then I could see that but I doubt anyone believed them.

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 03:31 PM

The idea was that they were providing humanitarian aid, and the article you linked to even mentioned that those funds were sent during a cease fire.

Do you really believe that? Or are you just pretending so we can continue this banter? And you don't think any of those funds were used for arms, bombs, or other devices?

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 03:48 PM

Colonel Flagg

Apr 13th, 2010, 04:18 PM

The Australian government did not fund or support the Tamil Tigers in any way. Tamil refugees are not even classed as such when they flee Sri Lanka and get to our borders.

Welcome back to the fray, Zhukov.

I'd like to learn more about the Tasmanian "Independence Struggle" of the mid '70s to late '80s. Since the relevant material has been censored, are there any books that I can read about this incident?

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 04:49 PM

Dude, you're going to get him in trouble.

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 04:51 PM

Didn't see the first four words of that post, did ya? Doesn't really seem like I'm expressing my own opinion when I write like that, does it? Would you like another rhetorical question?

And could you post a link to the Pakistan vs India thing or tell me where I can find more information?

You need to do your own research and come to your own conclusion. :sleep

Welcome back to the fray, Zhukov.

I'd like to learn more about the Tasmanian "Independence Struggle" of the mid '70s to late '80s. Since the relevant material has been censored, are there any books that I can read about this incident?

Yes,

Please tell us more Zhukov. I was very interested in your story. Many important subjects are overlooked here in the states and by many I mean almost everything except sports, celebrities, and America's funniest home videos.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 04:53 PM

You need to do your own research and come to your own conclusion. :sleep
Goddamnit. I thought that you actually had a news story or something. I should have known that you were just making stuff up again. :x

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 04:54 PM

Goddamnit. I thought that you actually had a news story or something. I should have known that you were just making stuff up again.

Follow your nose. Tucan Sam. :squigly Question reality a little bit more. There is a whole historical events out there that've been kept from most people.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 04:56 PM

Question reality a little bit more. There is a whole history out there that has been kept from most people.
I question it more than you realize. All I want is to see that someone blamed Pakistan for LTTE attacks. You get me interested in something and then you bring everything crashing down. Why do you toy with my affections so?

Colonel Flagg

Apr 13th, 2010, 05:00 PM

YOU GIVE OUT HOPE LIKE IT WAS CANDY IN YOUR POCKET!

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 05:00 PM

I question it more than you realize. All I want is to see that someone blamed Pakistan for LTTE attacks. You get me interested in something and then you bring everything crashing down. Why do you toy with my affections so?

Well allow me to redeem myself good sir!

If you're looking for a sticky situation to research then I would suggest taking a gander at the Mumbai attacks. There were numerous connections to covert state sponsored support in that event.

If you want I can make a new thread about it so you can all scream "Conspiracy Theorist" at me in unison?

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 05:01 PM

TheCoolinator

Apr 13th, 2010, 05:08 PM

If you really want to but I'm more interested in the LTTE being used as a tool of Pakistan and India. All I can find about it is opposite what you wrote, that Pakistan blamed India for a LTTE attack. Is that what you were referencing?

Hmm,

I may have gotten them switched. Eitherway, if you want to go after the crux of the issue just research which faction (Nation State) defended the Tamil Tigers when they were being attacked by the Sri Lankan government. Defense of outlaws (terrorists) is usually a smoking gun or red flag in the world of covert activities. This usually points to who is really backing them.

If my memory serves me right it was a Human Rights person in the UN but I don't know what nation he was working for.

The Leader

Apr 13th, 2010, 05:13 PM

What do think the state sponsorship in the Mumbai attacks was, other than Pakistan training and equipping Lashkar-e-Taiba?

Zhukov

Apr 14th, 2010, 02:22 AM

Welcome back to the fray, Zhukov.

I'd like to learn more about the Tasmanian "Independence Struggle" of the mid '70s to late '80s. Since the relevant material has been censored, are there any books that I can read about this incident?

Well I'm actually writing one myself. There is not much text material around, so mostly it's going to be filled with interviews of people that experienced it. I have a few photos from my own personal collection as well. I've been told that it's going to be impossible to get it published here, so I'm going to have to smuggle it out to my contact in the UK and have it published there.

I can't fly there myself since it's almost impossible to get a travel permit because of my ethnicity.

As far as state support goes, I think you will find, The Leader, that there is almost always some form of government activity going on behind the scenes. It may not be as direct as your cookie cutter view of the world hopes it to be, but it's still there. For instance, the previous New Zealand government (before the right wing conservatives came to power) sent a lot of humanitarian aid to the Tasmanian government in exile for things such as food and shelter. While it wasn't guns and ammunition, it meant that less money had to be spent on food, and more could be spent on bombs etc.

TheCoolinator

Apr 14th, 2010, 10:42 AM

What do think the state sponsorship in the Mumbai attacks was, other than Pakistan training and equipping Lashkar-e-Taiba?

Some articles for you:

Mumbai terrorists used Chechen tactics

http://rt.com/Top_News/2008-11-28/Mumbai_terrorists_used_Chechen_tactics.html (http://rt.com/Top_News/2008-11-28/Mumbai_terrorists_used_Chechen_tactics.html)

Somewhat relevant to the main topic.

Lashkar rejects 'confession' in Mumbai probe

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iazNx59e-BbHT6I_7FBE7LnZfJ3w (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iazNx59e-BbHT6I_7FBE7LnZfJ3w)

Lashkar-e-Taiba do not admit to the attacks. Very odd.

and finally,

Type in Hamid Gul interview into YouTube and check out what he said regarding the Mumbai Attacks. He used to be Pakistani ISI.

As far as state support goes, I think you will find, The Leader, that there is almost always some form of government activity going on behind the scenes. It may not be as direct as your cookie cutter view of the world hopes it to be, but it's still there.

Wow, thanks for throwing me under the bus a few posts ago and now agreeing with me completely.

And being rude to TheLeader now is completely uncalled for. :posh

Zhukov

Apr 14th, 2010, 11:58 AM

The Leader, check out this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFRzjl7XYas&feature=related), you might find it interesting.

The Leader

Apr 14th, 2010, 12:38 PM

As far as state support goes, I think you will find, The Leader, that there is almost always some form of government activity going on behind the scenes. It may not be as direct as your cookie cutter view of the world hopes it to be, but it's still there. For instance, the previous New Zealand government (before the right wing conservatives came to power) sent a lot of humanitarian aid to the Tasmanian government in exile for things such as food and shelter. While it wasn't guns and ammunition, it meant that less money had to be spent on food, and more could be spent on bombs etc.
If that's any kind of sponsorship, it'd be passive sponsorship. Plus the New Zealand government wasn't actively supporting Tasmanian terrorist groups. They thought that they were just feeding some people, and you took advantage of that.

Somewhat relevant to the main topic.
Kind of relevant, I guess. The tactics used weren't that unique so I don't know if you're suggesting that Russia is trying to tie everything to the Chechens, which they always do, or if you're saying that both groups were trained by the same people.

Lashkar-e-Taiba do not admit to the attacks. Very odd.
Yup.
Type in Hamid Gul interview into YouTube and check out what he said regarding the Mumbai Attacks. He used to be Pakistani ISI.
I couldn't find any subtitled videos of him. :( Plus he is Pakistani so of course he's going to deny that a Pakistani based, armed and trained group carried out the attacks.

I'm not denying that state sponsored terrorism occurs, the only thing that I disagree with is that these groups represent the majority in modern terrorism. I don't think that college aged radicals who ate condensed soup and built bombs from household items were funded by any government, but I do think that the majority of terrorist groups operating during the cold war were sponsored by either the US or USSR, as evidenced by the rapid dissolution of groups across the board after the collapse of the Soviet government.

The majority of terrorist attacks that occur in the United States currently are carried out by anti-abortion groups. I don't think that any government is intentionally pumping funds into those nuts, and many of them act alone, taking pot shots at doctors and the like. I'm not completely disagreeing with what you write, especially in the cluster fuck of the Mumbai attacks, but looking at how most terrorist groups struggle for funds, I just don't see a big, all encompassing conspiracy.

The Leader, check out this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFRzjl7XYas&feature=related), you might find it interesting.
That proves nothing!

Zhukov

Apr 14th, 2010, 01:40 PM

The Leader you are an idiot. Even if it's "passive support" or a person doesn't know where their money is going, it's still support. Even if it's just a person who donates money to a charity, and that charity is a front, as long as the individual is a citizen of a particular country, then that countries government is giving money to these groups. In this case a terrorist group.

The Leader

Apr 14th, 2010, 04:04 PM

You're the idiot! >:

Ant10708

Apr 14th, 2010, 08:07 PM

The Leader: I'm not writing a case study. I'm debating people I have never met on an internet message board called Imockery. In my opinion Time is a fairly credible source when it comes to current events and I assume they vetted their sources but maybe I'm wrong and they made up those experts and the entire story but I really don't care enough to do a work cited page at the end of my message board term paper for you. I also do not lack the intelligence to understand your posts. I do understand your position, a lot of my responses were written in the middle of the night with me being fueled by red bull and just typing my streaming thoughts. I wasn't really trying to directly respond to what you were saying but more or less express my opinion on the issue in general and how I saw things differently. we should probaly all stop calling each other morons(except coolinator who is a moron who can't be defended) for not agreeing with one another because its pretty pointless and basically shows no matter what the other person says we won't take them seriously because we don't think they are smart enough to be right on anything.

Coolinator:
"Those were state sponsored terrorists"
"There are no terrorists. It's fake. It's like communism."

You are a fucking moron. First it has not been proven that they were sponsored by pakistan and just because their cause is to create tension between two countries does not mean they were state sponsored but my main question is if there are no terrorists then how were they 'state sponsored terrorists'? Also communism doesn't exist at all in any form around the world? ok....

I also love how some people ignore the facts about the black widow bombers that disprove some of your earlier arguments about them(or terrorists in general) being people seeking legitimate revenge against a state oppressor and not simply brainwashed pawns being manipulated for the most part by violent thugs. I at least can be open to the fact that I'm not 100 percent right and try to see things from an opposing viewpoint.

"The majority of terrorist attacks that occur in the United States currently are carried out by anti-abortion groups." This is also very inaccurate. unabomer, tim mcveigh, anthrax mailings, irs plane crash, 9/11 would beg to differ. not to mention all the eco terrorism our country currently experiences. I'd probaly guess that eco terrorism is the majority in terms of amount of incidents. how many times are abortion doctors killed or clinics bombed? not nearly as frequently as acts of eco terrorism. their are dozens of incidents every year of eco terrorism in california alone. they even fire bomb scientists cars in extreme cases and cause a large amount of property damage to companies all over in their more routine activities.

" In April, 2009, Daniel Andreas San Diego, 31, an American citizen and computer specialist, joined the ranks of international terrorists wanted by the FBI. A quarter-million dollar reward was put on his head. In 2003, he planted bombs at two animal research facilities in California, lacing them with shrapnel and setting them up so as to target first responders. Since then, he has been on the run, presumably leading a vegan lifestyle somewhere in Central America." How many anti-abortionists are on international terrorist wanted lists?( doesn't prove eco terrorists are the majority but shows how real of a threat eco terrorism is). I am fairly certain that eco terrorists are a much higher prioity for the FBI then anti-abortionists considering the amount of property damage they consistently produce opposed to the occassional murdered abortion doctor but I'll have to ask my father to ask his customer who is an FBI field agent to confirm that.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

Link is about how the fbi views eco terrorism

" The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996(this report was written in 2002), resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars." "In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States"

The Leader

Apr 14th, 2010, 10:05 PM

The Leader: I'm not writing a case study. I'm debating people I have never met on an internet message board called Imockery. In my opinion Time is a fairly credible source when it comes to current events and I assume they vetted their sources but maybe I'm wrong and they made up those experts and the entire story but I really don't care enough to do a work cited page at the end of my message board term paper for you.
I never disputed your sources, nor the story. Nor did I ask you for a works cited page. I was only responding to the fact that you think I just pull "facts" out of my ass even though I probably have to look at studies written by researchers. Not just little bits and pieces quoted in news articles but the actual studies.

I also love how some people ignore the facts about the black widow bombers that disprove some of your earlier arguments about them(or terrorists in general) being people seeking legitimate revenge against a state oppressor and not simply brainwashed pawns being manipulated for the most part by violent thugs. I at least can be open to the fact that I'm not 100 percent right and try to see things from an opposing viewpoint.
The rational behind individual terrorism and the rational of a group, meaning why they do what they do, what their goals are etc, differ greatly. I think me and coolie have largely been discussing it from the group perspective. In discussing the Chechens we have not discussed individual's motivations which can be, as you write, due to manipulation but it can also be monetary gain, to get respect from a community that idolizes martyrs, it could be because of some personal problem, etc.

The groups as a whole, however, are motivated by what they feel is right. In this case they want to be seperate from Russia and they have gotten to the point where they are willing to pick up women, strap bombs on them and blow up innocent people. They believe that will help them in their exploits. I don't think anyone here ever seriously argued with you on this, and I believe that I tried to explain this earlier, but maybe I just called you a tool. I don't know.

"The majority of terrorist attacks that occur in the United States currently are carried out by anti-abortion groups." This is also very inaccurate. unabomer, tim mcveigh, anthrax mailings, irs plane crash, 9/11 would beg to differ. not to mention all the eco terrorism our country currently experiences. I'd probaly guess that eco terrorism is the majority in terms of amount of incidents. how many times are abortion doctors killed or clinics bombed? not nearly as frequently as acts of eco terrorism. their are dozens of incidents every year of eco terrorism in california alone. they even fire bomb scientists cars in extreme cases and cause a large amount of property damage to companies all over in their more routine activities.
I get those two mixed up a lot for some reason. Anti-abortion accounts for the second largest amount, though. :)

Also comparing five separate incidents, having four different ideologies driving them, as showing that anti-abortion attacks account for a majority doesn't make sense.

Pentegarn

Apr 14th, 2010, 11:23 PM

Zhukov

Apr 15th, 2010, 01:56 AM

Well I have heard somewhere about an abortion clinic being blown up, I think. Or was it a pipe bomb in the letter box?

Fathom Zero

Apr 15th, 2010, 02:13 AM

:lol

Colonel Flagg

Apr 15th, 2010, 09:02 AM

When you refer to anti abortion terrorism, are you talking about when they murder abortion doctors? Or have they done other things I am unaware of (entirely through never researching the subject) like blow up abortion clinics?

I know they routinely picket outside on public property, speaking sharply to those individuals who would enter the establishment. Is that terrorism?

(BTW, the whack-job in Kansas didn't get what he deserved. >:)

The Leader

Apr 15th, 2010, 11:56 AM

Kill doctors/nurses, blow up clinics, burn clinics down, ect. It's fun for the whole family.

TheCoolinator

Apr 16th, 2010, 09:18 AM

I don't know how many times I have to say this....but.....

The word terrorism is just a label of demonization. The establishment is attempting to make every little infraction "terrorism". It's incremental behavior modification.

Remember when everything was communism this and communism that? Don't you see how they create enemy images to fool the public into believing that there is a real threat all the while stealing trillions of dollars in military contracts, bankers / insurance bailouts, and clamping down on civil liberties?

Yes, terrorism is a tactic. Yes, some are real terrorists, but most if not all of the time those "terrorists" are either provoked,....duped,....funded,...or completely synthetic. Funded by public-private partnerships.

Colonel Flagg

Apr 16th, 2010, 10:04 AM

I don't know how many times I have to say this....but.....

How about "none"?

Dimnos

Apr 16th, 2010, 10:58 AM

Coolinator, who is the Somerton Man?

TheCoolinator

Apr 16th, 2010, 02:28 PM

Coolinator, who is the Somerton Man?

No idea but he was definitely poisoned. :x

Colonel Flagg

Apr 16th, 2010, 05:07 PM

who is the Somerton Man?

I can't believe over 60 years later and no one has any idea either who he is, or what the mysterious letters represent.

he was definitely poisoned. [emphasis mine]

If you're definite, then you must know why. Otherwise, there is still a possibility of either accidental death or suicide.

So, why was he poisoned?

EDIT: I assume from the context that you refer to a deliberate act by another individual or individuals, i.e. murder. If you are just saying that he ingested poison, which could also have either been accidental, or in order to effect his own death, then yes, you are probably correct.

Zhukov

Apr 17th, 2010, 04:51 AM

I don't know how many times I have to say this....but.....

The word terrorism is just a label of demonization. The establishment is attempting to make every little infraction "terrorism". It's incremental behavior modification.

Remember when everything was communism this and communism that? Don't you see how they create enemy images to fool the public into believing that there is a real threat all the while stealing trillions of dollars in military contracts, bankers / insurance bailouts, and clamping down on civil liberties?

That's right, I mean people say that Stalin killed millions of his own people, but it's pretty obvious to anyone that looks beyond the hype that the so called facts are all just put there by the CIA and stuff like that. If you ask a real Russian that was alive during the 80s and early 90s they will tell you he wasn't such a bad guy.

Ant10708

Apr 17th, 2010, 03:48 PM

Russians <3 Stalin

Colonel Flagg

Apr 17th, 2010, 08:00 PM

Almost as much as they <3 Hitler.

TheCoolinator

Apr 22nd, 2010, 01:30 PM

yes, you are probably correct.

I love you too Colonel. :love

"Put a little love in your heart"

Al Green

Dimnos

Apr 22nd, 2010, 02:02 PM

If you ask a real Russian that was alive during the 80s and early 90s they will tell you he wasn't such a bad guy.

And they didnt even get to enjoy the awesome health benefits of the GULAG system.

TheCoolinator

Apr 22nd, 2010, 03:30 PM

And they didnt even get to enjoy the awesome health benefits of the GULAG system.

At least we'll get a chance to experience it here in the USA.

Obamacare AKA Insurance Bailout will be appointing callous board members AKA death panels so AIG, AETNA, and METLIFE can continue to deny our care. I mean we wouldn't want it to affect their bottomline.....that would be un-American.

Dimnos

Apr 22nd, 2010, 04:47 PM

I would be ALL FUCKING FOR Obamacare if it was the end of big insurance. :\

Colonel Flagg

Apr 22nd, 2010, 10:32 PM

Obamacare AKA Insurance Bailout will be appointing callous board members AKA death panels so AIG, AETNA, and METLIFE can continue to deny our care.

No. I won't do it. Someone else take a turn.

Pentegarn

Apr 23rd, 2010, 05:44 AM

I did read somewhere (I forget where exactly, I was doing something else at the time and thought I would research it later, I still have yet to) that the language of this health care bill does leave room for insurance to still deny health care to people, they just can't state that it is because of preexisting health problems. They can just make up some other silly reason for it instead becasue the wording only covers preexisting conditions.

TheCoolinator

Apr 23rd, 2010, 10:12 AM

I would be ALL FUCKING FOR Obamacare if it was the end of big insurance.

I would be too but it's the anti-thesis of that. It actually makes the big, parasitical, for profit, insurance companies more powerful while bailing them out by forcing you to buy their "product". All they had to do was expand medicare.

We didn't even need this whole "single payer option", we already have a state run medical program. Medicaid / Medicare. Expand them and allow them to compete with the private insurance crooks.

No. I won't do it. Someone else take a turn.

I think you should re-watch the Dennis Kucinich interview. Obamacare is an insurance company bailout in disguise.

I did read somewhere (I forget where exactly, I was doing something else at the time and thought I would research it later, I still have yet to) that the language of this health care bill does leave room for insurance to still deny health care to people, they just can't state that it is because of preexisting health problems. They can just make up some other silly reason for it instead becasue the wording only covers preexisting conditions.

And don't forget the death panels, the cuts in medicare, and the compulsary mandate that makes you buy for-profit insurance products that (as you have just stated) can deny you care the minute your health issues affect their bottomline.

Zhukov

Apr 23rd, 2010, 10:30 AM

It's a little known fact that Obamacare is mainly and covertly designed for the training and funding of a "Escuadrón de la Muerte", a paramilitary group made up of pharmaceutical company CEOs with explicit aims to seek out and eliminate genuine health care reforms with extreme prejudice.

Dimnos

Apr 23rd, 2010, 10:54 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YGLQQZTHoU0/Sn8iJdfTqTI/AAAAAAAAJgI/qQuuAgO7gFQ/s400/Nurse+Dr+Gun.jpg

The Leader

Apr 23rd, 2010, 10:58 AM

:lol

The Leader

Apr 23rd, 2010, 11:00 AM

I think you should re-watch the Dennis Kucinich interview. Obamacare is an insurance company bailout in disguise.
I think his post was focusing more on the whole death panel myth thing that Palin still clings to. And you, apparently. No one here has ever disagreed that this is just a bailout for insurance companies.

Colonel Flagg

Apr 23rd, 2010, 11:07 AM

How did a thread discussing an explosion in a Moscow Metro station beget a debate on the merits and pitfalls of the new healthcare legislation (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/more-malarkey-about-health-care/)? :confused

Zhukov

Apr 23rd, 2010, 11:23 AM

Moscow Russia GULAG Obamacare.

I, for one, have been trying to keep this thread serious and on track.

The Leader

Apr 23rd, 2010, 11:30 AM

And we all appreciate your work, Zhukov.

TheCoolinator

Apr 23rd, 2010, 02:36 PM

I think his post was focusing more on the whole death panel myth thing that Palin still clings to. .

Death Panels are in the Obamacare bill, they aren't a myth.

More info

This law will force Americans to enroll in "qualified" health plans – that is, plans approved and controlled by the government. Americans will be invited to "choose" between "public" and "private" insurance plans, but will find little difference between them. "Public" or "private," they will all follow the same rules, dictated by the Department of Health and Human Services – the same agency, incidentally, which issued the report, titled "The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care Expenditures, 2006." (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm)

How will Obama cut costs? His June 13 radio speech gave some hints. Obama said his plan would provide "incentives" to doctors to "avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs."
And what sort of treatment does Obama consider "unnecessary?" In an ABC News special June 24, he implied medical treatment might be wasted on elderly people with grave illnesses, citing his own grandmother as an example.
Dying of cancer, with less than a year to live, Obama's grandmother broke her hip. "[T]he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery

(http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107403#), even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?" asked the president.

It turns out that Obama's grandmother did get the hip replacement – though he did not say so on ABC that night. Obama left the story about his grandmother unfinished, but went on to suggest that other people faced with such choices might do well to forget about surgery and settle instead for palliative or comfort care – treatment that helps you feel better while you are dying, but does not prolong your life.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107403