Moscow Metro suicide bombings

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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).

[Dimnos]

Freedom fighters are terrorist that won.

[kahljorn]

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]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

[TheCoolinator]

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.

Bottom line,

Terrorism is the new communism and to go even further back, it's the new Nazism. This is the reality in which we and others are being baptized in to. The new enemy figure is no longer humorous caricatures of Mao or Stalin it's now an unnamed force called "terrorism". 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.

Remember what I said in my last post. The USA has been funding the Chechen terrorist envoy Ilyas Akhmadov for years now. That would be the same as Russia funding "Osama Bin laden".

Can anyone here make the connection?

State sponsored terrorism.

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.

Very similar to calling someone a Conspiracy theorists for not adhering to the established paradigm.

[Zhukov]

No way!

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

No way!

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

Ha,

I know how you feel Zhukov. Don't let them get you down.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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

When? :O

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

Originally Posted by Ant10708

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.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

I think you're all missing the point here.

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

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by The Leader

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-...hen-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.

Originally Posted by The Leader

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

Your a terrorist because you support terrorists.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Your a terrorist because you support terrorists.

I think that what I'm writing is going over your head.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by The Leader

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]

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]

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

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]

"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.

[Ant10708]

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.

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

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.

[Ant10708]

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 Shabwah Province 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]

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]

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

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

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.
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."
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.

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.

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by The Leader

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.

[The Leader]

Are you saying that it doesn't work?