|
Post by men an tol on Mar 28, 2015 23:27:29 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure one can be arrested for terrorist activity here without being a "terrorist" attached to any previously known terrorist group. I could be wrong but don't think so. It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. It is just a word use to discredit people you disagree with. To me it is a none word, everyone is a terrorist, just depends on whcih side of the fence/war you sit. It is used to demonise anyone who disagrees with the terrorist regime of the establishment basically. Anyhow just checked to make sure you were in the USA and indeed you are!! Anyhow I don't think summing people up with one word "terrorist" is very helpful, it is a demonsing word. An interesting perspective Kronks, it would seem to include just about any country or organization which fielded a military. Obviously I don't use such a generalized definition but rather use the specific definition, “ . . . Terrorism includes intent that is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. . . . “ War is not clean or nice or surgical in application. People die. While some try to focus on those who are the actual fighters, clearly it doesn't always work that way. However others try to fight by intentionally and almost exclusively focusing on the civilian population, especially women, children, and the aged. Some even up-the-intensity of this approach to warfare, with brutal violence against these civilians and against captured and helpless fighters. To identify these people as terrorist may be (in your words) demonizing such people, but I believe it to be simply describing them with truth and accepted terminology. While this is an interesting exchange, it isn't the subject of the thread. That theme is, should the copilot be referred to as a terrorist? I don't believe that he fits the commonly accepted definition of a terrorist and others do. Your asserting, “ . . . It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. . . “ Quite clearly 'in your book' is your opinion, but I suggest that few countries (including the United Nations) would accept your definition.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 28, 2015 23:58:29 GMT -5
Do you distinguish between good terrorism and bad terrorism?? For example the USA has funded many terrorist groups in it's time. Not for this theme since that discussion is long and would just confuse the issue being discussed. However, terrorism (in addition to what has been discussed) is focused on the civilian populace and not those who are the fighters. Well there are various forms of terrorism, "terrorist" groups also attack military targets and non-terrorist organisation such a s the UK USA and Germany in WWII also carpet bombed civilian areas, the USA for example from 2 nuclear bombs on the Japaneese cities. You must therefore agree those were terrorist acts carried out by terrorist organisations? So it is not really as clear cut as you might like to make out, indeed it is not really a very help word, too vague and ill defined. I mean you instead refer to organisations or people who resort to violence, but you can't demonise a specific group with that definition without demonising yourself.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 29, 2015 0:19:08 GMT -5
It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. It is just a word use to discredit people you disagree with. To me it is a none word, everyone is a terrorist, just depends on whcih side of the fence/war you sit. It is used to demonise anyone who disagrees with the terrorist regime of the establishment basically. Anyhow just checked to make sure you were in the USA and indeed you are!! Anyhow I don't think summing people up with one word "terrorist" is very helpful, it is a demonsing word. An interesting perspective Kronks, it would seem to include just about any country or organization which fielded a military. Obviously I don't use such a generalized definition but rather use the specific definition, “ . . . Terrorism includes intent that is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. . . . “ War is not clean or nice or surgical in application. People die. While some try to focus on those who are the actual fighters, clearly it doesn't always work that way. However others try to fight by intentionally and almost exclusively focusing on the civilian population, especially women, children, and the aged. Some even up-the-intensity of this approach to warfare, with brutal violence against these civilians and against captured and helpless fighters. To identify these people as terrorist may be (in your words) demonizing such people, but I believe it to be simply describing them with truth and accepted terminology. While this is an interesting exchange, it isn't the subject of the thread. That theme is, should the copilot be referred to as a terrorist? I don't believe that he fits the commonly accepted definition of a terrorist and others do. Your asserting, “ . . . It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. . . “ Quite clearly 'in your book' is your opinion, but I suggest that few countries (including the United Nations) would accept your definition. As I have said that definition would include most countries. The word tends to demonise the cause they are fighting for, which may be more valid than the cause they are fighting against. It is all very well to talk about terrorism when you can get your desires through overwhelming fire power without attacking civilians specifically but it does not mean you aims/objective hold the higher moral ground. Sometime terrorism is the only means at a groups disposal, usually an oppressed minority. Anyhow he did say "One day I'm going to do something that will change the whole system" That is almost identical to your definition "calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals". They are almost exactly the same things, So he wanted to use an attack on civilian to achieve his political objective.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 29, 2015 1:29:05 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure one can be arrested for terrorist activity here without being a "terrorist" attached to any previously known terrorist group. I could be wrong but don't think so. It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. It is just a word use to discredit people you disagree with. To me it is a none word, everyone is a terrorist, just depends on whcih side of the fence/war you sit. It is used to demonise anyone who disagrees with the terrorist regime of the establishment basically. Anyhow just checked to make sure you were in the USA and indeed you are!! Anyhow I don't think summing people up with one word "terrorist" is very helpful, it is a demonsing word. It's a bit more than that, Kronks. Those who label themselves, "terrorists" are out to destroy .. anti--terrorists are working to bring down and stop the destroyers (terrorists). Not too hard to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2015 3:30:35 GMT -5
""""Well there are various forms of terrorism, "terrorist" groups also attack military targets and non-terrorist organisation such a s the UK USA and Germany in WWII also carpet bombed civilian areas, the USA for example from 2 nuclear bombs on the Japaneese cities."""
you seem to be mixing up war with terrorism,,,the two are entirely different in war..a declared war where the end result will by nature of war.. have to be surrender and defeat..capitulation of one side to the other...each side fights to its own benefit..and each side fights to win....in war there is a recognised enemy and a will to defeat that enemy by what ever means is possible..
terrorism on the other hand is about blackmail..its the school bully...its selecting targets for political or religious or sexual harm which is usually carried out by groups on a basis of hit and run..its about causing terror...it is self explanatory with terrorism.. the enemy is not always recognisable..terrorism can act randomly and at will
to put actions taken by the allies and Germany such as carpet bombing ..the Abomb etc down as acts of state terrorism..is naïve and shows absolutely a misunderstanding of the war in the pacsific and the war in Europe and exactly why actions happened..and what they were intending to achieve I notice Russia was left out of the list...and could ask why..in that taking Berlin the Russian unleashed hell on the Berlin civilians....again there was a reason...slightly different than the carpet bombing of Dresden and slightly different reasoning than the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in a war the whole of a nation is involved..every one knows exactly who the enemy is
terrorism is carried out by random groups acting covertly many of them reluctent to make identities known
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 29, 2015 5:43:35 GMT -5
""""Well there are various forms of terrorism, "terrorist" groups also attack military targets and non-terrorist organisation such a s the UK USA and Germany in WWII also carpet bombed civilian areas, the USA for example from 2 nuclear bombs on the Japaneese cities.""" you seem to be mixing up war with terrorism,,,the two are entirely different in war..a declared war where the end result will by nature of war.. have to be surrender and defeat..capitulation of one side to the other...each side fights to its own benefit..and each side fights to win....in war there is a recognised enemy and a will to defeat that enemy by what ever means is possible.. terrorism on the other hand is about blackmail..its the school bully...its selecting targets for political or religious or sexual harm which is usually carried out by groups on a basis of hit and run..its about causing terror...it is self explanatory with terrorism.. the enemy is not always recognisable..terrorism can act randomly and at will to put actions taken by the allies and Germany such as carpet bombing ..the Abomb etc down as acts of state terrorism..is naïve and shows absolutely a misunderstanding of the war in the pacsific and the war in Europe and exactly why actions happened..and what they were intending to achieve I notice Russia was left out of the list...and could ask why..in that taking Berlin the Russian unleashed hell on the Berlin civilians....again there was a reason...slightly different than the carpet bombing of Dresden and slightly different reasoning than the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a war the whole of a nation is involved..every one knows exactly who the enemy is terrorism is carried out by random groups acting covertly many of them reluctent to make identities known Good post smiley 1
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Mar 29, 2015 17:14:48 GMT -5
I believe there are now question marks being asked over whether it really was the pilot or if it was a fault by Lufthansa who of course with their 'vorsprung durch Stierscheiss' can't possibly admit that German engineering could be at fault!
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 29, 2015 19:48:49 GMT -5
It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. It is just a word use to discredit people you disagree with. To me it is a none word, everyone is a terrorist, just depends on whcih side of the fence/war you sit. It is used to demonise anyone who disagrees with the terrorist regime of the establishment basically. Anyhow just checked to make sure you were in the USA and indeed you are!! Anyhow I don't think summing people up with one word "terrorist" is very helpful, it is a demonsing word. It's a bit more than that, Kronks. Those who label themselves, "terrorists" are out to destroy .. anti--terrorists are working to bring down and stop the destroyers (terrorists). Not too hard to figure out. Bit too simplistic, terrorists generally want some sort of change which they believe is for the better, anti-terrorists tend to want to keep things as they are. The USA used to sponsor the Taliban as I understand it, and I belive they have sponsered/aided other terrorist groups in their time if they think it is in their interest. There is big long list of stuff here, I have not read it.. www.alternet.org/world/35-countries-where-us-has-supported-fascists-druglords-and-terrorists...but the first entry says Every side in a dispute believe they are on the right side and the opposition are evil terrorists etc...
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 29, 2015 19:55:16 GMT -5
I believe there are now question marks being asked over whether it really was the pilot or if it was a fault by Lufthansa who of course with their 'vorsprung durch Stierscheiss' can't possibly admit that German engineering could be at fault! I think the biggest fear for them would be to be proven negligent in their safety procedures, ie procedure which allow a mentally ill pilot to be left alone at the controls. That would not happen in the USA I beleive nor Asian, but it can happen in Europe because their safety procedures appear to be flawed. Problem is the people at fault, the European safety agencies, are basically investigating themselves!! It would be a blessing in disguise if they found and engineering fault!!! Put simply the prosecutor is unlikely (European safety agencies) to find himself guilty!!!
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 29, 2015 20:08:14 GMT -5
""""Well there are various forms of terrorism, "terrorist" groups also attack military targets and non-terrorist organisation such a s the UK USA and Germany in WWII also carpet bombed civilian areas, the USA for example from 2 nuclear bombs on the Japaneese cities.""" you seem to be mixing up war with terrorism,,,the two are entirely different in war..a declared war where the end result will by nature of war.. have to be surrender and defeat..capitulation of one side to the other...each side fights to its own benefit..and each side fights to win....in war there is a recognised enemy and a will to defeat that enemy by what ever means is possible.. terrorism on the other hand is about blackmail..its the school bully...its selecting targets for political or religious or sexual harm which is usually carried out by groups on a basis of hit and run..its about causing terror...it is self explanatory with terrorism.. the enemy is not always recognisable..terrorism can act randomly and at will to put actions taken by the allies and Germany such as carpet bombing ..the Abomb etc down as acts of state terrorism..is naïve and shows absolutely a misunderstanding of the war in the pacsific and the war in Europe and exactly why actions happened..and what they were intending to achieve I notice Russia was left out of the list...and could ask why..in that taking Berlin the Russian unleashed hell on the Berlin civilians....again there was a reason...slightly different than the carpet bombing of Dresden and slightly different reasoning than the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a war the whole of a nation is involved..every one knows exactly who the enemy is terrorism is carried out by random groups acting covertly many of them reluctent to make identities known markindurham used targeting of civilians in his definition of terrorism, I was just pointing out that was done during war time too. terrorist tend to fighting from a position of weakness where they are out numbered/outpowered one such terrorist is the internationally acclaimed Nelson Mandella. Then there is Martin McGuiness and Jerry Adams now part of a legitimate government.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 30, 2015 0:32:39 GMT -5
""""Well there are various forms of terrorism, "terrorist" groups also attack military targets and non-terrorist organisation such a s the UK USA and Germany in WWII also carpet bombed civilian areas, the USA for example from 2 nuclear bombs on the Japaneese cities.""" you seem to be mixing up war with terrorism,,,the two are entirely different in war..a declared war where the end result will by nature of war.. have to be surrender and defeat..capitulation of one side to the other...each side fights to its own benefit..and each side fights to win....in war there is a recognised enemy and a will to defeat that enemy by what ever means is possible.. terrorism on the other hand is about blackmail..its the school bully...its selecting targets for political or religious or sexual harm which is usually carried out by groups on a basis of hit and run..its about causing terror...it is self explanatory with terrorism.. the enemy is not always recognisable..terrorism can act randomly and at will to put actions taken by the allies and Germany such as carpet bombing ..the Abomb etc down as acts of state terrorism..is naïve and shows absolutely a misunderstanding of the war in the pacsific and the war in Europe and exactly why actions happened..and what they were intending to achieve I notice Russia was left out of the list...and could ask why..in that taking Berlin the Russian unleashed hell on the Berlin civilians....again there was a reason...slightly different than the carpet bombing of Dresden and slightly different reasoning than the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a war the whole of a nation is involved..every one knows exactly who the enemy is terrorism is carried out by random groups acting covertly many of them reluctent to make identities known markindurham used targeting of civilians in his definition of terrorism, I was just pointing out that was done during war time too. terrorist tend to fighting from a position of weakness where they are out numbered/outpowered one such terrorist is the internationally acclaimed Nelson Mandella. Then there is Martin McGuiness and Jerry Adams now part of a legitimate government. Mandela WAS a terrorist - ditto McGuinness and Adams. No question. All 3 should have been hanged. However, the point about comparing peacetime to wartime activities - wartime as it is traditionally accepted, that is; nation against nation - is very much a straw man argument. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 30, 2015 0:36:51 GMT -5
I believe there are now question marks being asked over whether it really was the pilot or if it was a fault by Lufthansa who of course with their 'vorsprung durch Stierscheiss' can't possibly admit that German engineering could be at fault! I think the biggest fear for them would be to be proven negligent in their safety procedures, ie procedure which allow a mentally ill pilot to be left alone at the controls. That would not happen in the USA I beleive nor Asian, but it can happen in Europe because their safety procedures appear to be flawed. Problem is the people at fault, the European safety agencies, are basically investigating themselves!! It would be a blessing in disguise if they found and engineering fault!!! Put simply the prosecutor is unlikely (European safety agencies) to find himself guilty!!! Nope. In theory a similar incident could happen in the US too - many cabin crew would be no match for the remaining pilot if they had murderous intent. Think about it. All that placing a cabin crew member on the flight deck whilst one pilot goes on a 'personal needs break' does is act as a slight deterrent. It does NOT totally eliminate the risk.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 30, 2015 2:57:46 GMT -5
"""Every side in a dispute believe they are on the right side and the opposition are evil terrorists etc..."""
all depends on the definition of right side doesn't it.....and no I wouldn't say the opposition thinks every group are evil terrorists... one can consider the opposition to be on the right side..and still consider their methods as evil terrorism ie South Africa and Mandella....is a good example..i detested apartheid and the white regime..the treatment of the black majority by a minority white government and minority white population was appalling and in my book the terrorism shown toward the black piopulation...however I could not go along with the terrorism shown in reprisal either but what do people do when they are totally disempowered...they fight by what ever means possible...and luckily in South Africa things never became the blood bath that we see in other parts of the world[isis areas etc ]and it was clear what was wanted was equality rather than subjection.. and like it or not the truth is that was largely down to men and women such as Archbishop tutu...Sisulu..Mandella.. ..and so many other activists [including Winnie Mandella[who considering what she went through at the hands of the regime...went rougue but not as much as she could have done] then theres ISIS an other group of what can legitimately be called disempowered but their case is quite different from other groups of disempowered and where they have gone rougue is they have chosen the wrong targets..and are not seeking freedom but seeking to subject and subdue and impose Ireland and the troubles..the initial aim was a united Ireland...that is a legitimate aim in any ones book and they also wanted equality in N Ireland.... as with the others groups mentioned it is the methods used...but when all other options fail what is left except action out side of the law....ie terrorism.... I think all of us realise there are degrees of terrorism....and there are the aims of terrorism....
legitimate aims by illegitimate means
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 30, 2015 3:04:25 GMT -5
i was saying they too a stupid route over sea and mountains when they could have flown over land where they could easilly have landed What difference would that have made. The co-pilot Andreas Gunter Lubitz would still have crashed the plane. We now know that was his intention. Apparently he had converted to Muslim, if the findings are true.plus he was soon to lose his job as he couldn't keep his health problems hidden forever. What about his poor parents? A terrible situation all round.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 30, 2015 3:47:41 GMT -5
markindurham used targeting of civilians in his definition of terrorism, I was just pointing out that was done during war time too. terrorist tend to fighting from a position of weakness where they are out numbered/outpowered one such terrorist is the internationally acclaimed Nelson Mandella. Then there is Martin McGuiness and Jerry Adams now part of a legitimate government. Mandela WAS a terrorist - ditto McGuinness and Adams. No question. All 3 should have been hanged. However, the point about comparing peacetime to wartime activities - wartime as it is traditionally accepted, that is; nation against nation - is very much a straw man argument. Simple as that. A typical example of why a death sentence should not be carried out. As leader of his country Nelson Mandela's accomplishments for the betterment of his country far outweighs any terrorism that he might have been guilty of. I do believe he was an exemplary prisoner, even his guards who had made his life a hell at the beginning. Came to love and respect him as a person.
|
|