Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#2301 07/13/05 01:08 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
What is the scientific definition of terrorist? What distinguishes a terrorist from a freedom fighter or a soldier?

This is a scientific question. It falls under the Political and Social sciences. Science is all about definitions. Science advances only as the precision of description of physical phenomenon advances. This advance is intimately tied to the advance of devices for examining the physical world and the creation of more precise and accurate definitions.

The social and political sciences cannot morally or ethically perform laboratory experiments. Like astronomy, geology, and many other sciences they are forced to simply examine existing physical evidence and work from that.

What is a terrorist? How do you define terrorism scientifically? How is it different from or the same as a freedom fighter or a soldier?

In another forum, a retired member of the state department defined a terrorist as a fighter not authorized or representing a recognized government. This is not a scientific definition of terrorist but a political one. Any fighter representing a government, no matter how his actions are intended to terrorize a population is not a terrorist. On the other hand, a fighter not representing a recognized government, no matter how ethical and restrained his tactics would be a terrorist.

Historically, the term terrorist probably has its roots in the French Revolution and the infamous 'Terror' during which people were guillotined for any excuse suggesting they might resist the new revolutionary government. Terror was used as a weapon purposefully and intentionally. The people using it were the government. This does not jibe well with the definition provided by that retired state department official.

Terrorism is a tactic which uses fear and terror to coerce others. What is the difference between this and legitimate military action which uses military force to coerce others?

Terrorist target women and children and noncombatants. Soldiers do not. Is this the difference?

There is a real, scientific issue here. What is the difference between terrorism and other forms of warfare?

There is a profound psychological difference between two potential alpha males battling it out for dominance and a male beating and killing a female or a child.

Orthodox military strategy is about a contest between alpha males to see who is dominant. Mano a mano, man against man, soldier against soldier. Women and children and non-combatants are left out of the mix.

Terrorism targets the non-combatants. The terrorist realizes that he is too weak to challenge the alpha and instead the attacks the weak.

This has a paralel in nature. Gorillas indulge in terrorism to acquire mates. A male gorilla indulges in infanticide to get a mate. He will follow a dominant male and that males harem around and wait. He will steal a newborn infant and rip its throat out with his teeth to prove to the mother that the dominant male cannot protect her young. She will then mate with him.

A male can only protect so many females at a time.

Terrorism is like this. The terrorist does not have the strength to challenge a dominant military force. Instead it proves by attacking and killing the helpless and defenseless that that dominant military force cannot protect them.

The goal is to force them to then seek the terrorist as a better protector. This is the terrorist strategy in Iraq.

Terrorism outside the Middle East is based on the idea that terror can coerce behavior and force the people of Europe and the US to do what the terrorists want.

This is a much different issue. The cultures involved are very different. The results are much more complex. Terrorist actions are quite simple minded and entirely ignorant of the reality of what they are dealing with.

Still, the definition of terrorist should be someone who attacks the defenseless in order to produce terror in order to coerce behavior when they are not strong enough to challenge the dominant power in real combat. Or more simply the use of terror as a weapon to coerce behavior.

Define Terrorist.

Recently someone said that the US is a terrorist nation. It is a silly statement. The US has generally relied on military force not terror to accomplish its goals. Some actions during the Revolutionary War might be called terrorist, however a few actions do not a policy make.

The Ku Klux Klan, was without doubt a terrorist organization for a few decades. Still, its activities were not officially sanctioned by the US government. While it did enjoy some tolerance and even endorsement at some times, it cannot be considered an offical organ of the US government.

Nor did it indulge in international terrorism, lynching black people in Europe or the Middle East to achieve its agenda. It was clearly limited in its scope to pure domestic terrorism. It did not use terrorism to invade and coerce behavior in foreign nations.

Define terrorist. I am interested in what you think.

.
#2302 07/13/05 03:44 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Political science is not science, per se, any more than Quranic science is science. Nevertheless, the effort to define the term is useful.

Definitions can be arbitrary; however, some problem spaces allow for less leeway than others in definitions. I wrote "allow for." What I mean is really meant is that some definitions are more useful than others.

In engineering school we were indoctrinated into the "problem solving method" in every core class. Each had their own method, but they were all variations on a theme articulated by the mathematician Georg Polya in his book "How to Solve it." This method method corresponds to the method outlined by Dewey in his "How we think."

The steps given by Polya are:
1) understand the problem
2) plan a solution
3) carry out the plan
4) look back (check your work).

Lack of sufficient resource allocation in step 1 is the primary reason for failure in large software projects, and among the primary causes for failures in engineering projects in general. Many of the engineering tools that exist today are tools that help people understand the problem - statistical packages, software engineering practices, etc.

Problem definition (understanding the problem) is a major issue even in the hard sciences where the context of the problem can be (comparatively) easily abstracted and most of the team (including most of the management) is at least partially imbued with the fundamental principle that problems have to be defined correctly before they can be solved correctly. Nevertheless, many people involved in the processes have not had a thorough indoctrination and do what all or most first year engineering students try or want to do: solve the problem without doing all the leg work. This happens in the sciences and in engineering where people have some very strong advantages:
1) education and certification ensures that some of the people at least know the importance of defining problems and have some experience with doing so,
2) the practitioners are, on average, a quite intelligent lot and a reasonably well-educated group,
3) there are a staggering numbers of tools and training available to help people do things correctly,
4) the outside pressures tend to be economic - which can be bad enough - but to a lesser degree political. Though that is not true in all problems, of course, it is true in the majority of problems.
5) the problems are (relatively easily abstracted).

In the realm of social "sciences",

1) the problems are harder to abstract (rather, it's harder to VV&A the the abstraction),
2) the practitioners are generally less intelligent,
3) their "certifications" are questionable,
4) they are not nearly so well indoctrinated in the problem solving process,
5) their are tools that might be helpful, but only a few people know how to use them,
6) the problem space is much more complicated and the problems are enormously harder,
7) there is a lack of consensus on definitions, what definitions exist are vaguer, there is a lack of consensus on the value of things for computed cost/benefit,
8) nearly everything is politicized to some extent and much of it very highly so.

Currently the US government has a plethora of definitions of terrorist. And this doesn't include the (various) definitions used by our friends. At the very least we ought to ensure that we are coordinating our efforts to fight the same enemy. I've had arguments with (otherwise very intelligent) people who insisted vehemently that defining the term wasn't near so important as taking immediate action. These people were at first amused and then exasperated at my incredulity.

I do not for one second consider this to be science. That doesn't mean that we cannot benefit from a scientific approach. Define the problem (and definining terrorism is a necessary part of that). This will enable governments to coordinate action and develop policies that are less intrusive to honest citizens and offer some protection against the perpetrators.

As for those who consider the US to be a terrorist state, I can only say that they are deceiving themselves and are employing rhetoric. These people are playing humpty dumpty - words mean whatever they wish them to mean.

#2303 07/13/05 04:58 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:

As for those who consider the US to be a terrorist state, I can only say that they are deceiving themselves and are employing rhetoric. These people are playing humpty dumpty - words mean whatever they wish them to mean. [/QB]
What is a "terrorist state"?

#2304 07/13/05 05:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
That is a good question for those who make that assertion.

#2305 07/13/05 05:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Like "rogue nation/state"

#2306 07/13/05 05:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Sorry but this thread is a load of rubbish stacked to the ceiling.

What is a terrorist? Someone else blowing up my stuff.

What is a freedom fighter? Me blowing up someone else's stuff.

Was George Washington a freedom fighter?
Not if you asked King George III.

I find it hard to believe that anyone engages it this kind of mental nonsense after age 15.


DA Morgan
#2307 07/13/05 06:17 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
A terrorist is someone who tries to extort political change by threatening a civilian population with death and destruction.

That's pretty much it.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
#2308 07/13/05 11:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Not according to Hamas. Or do you disagree because you aren't one of them?

If so ... then reread what I wrote.


DA Morgan
#2309 07/14/05 12:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
What is the scientific definition of terrorist?
As has been stated, poli sci contains no science. Poli sci is opportunism, history rewritten by the victors, strong arm tactics, purchase of favors, expendable assets, acceptable collateral damage, plausible deniablity... power and money. "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson.

Terrorism has at least two characteristics. The muzzle is pointed at you, your friends, or your interests. There is no battle front.

Give the modern US Armed Forces a goal and the difference between advance and retreat. They cannot be defeated. Remove directionality and the US is impotent. The US has no balls to kill off an entire hatchery. The US is feminized and weepy-teep.

As with Indian Thuggees, The Cold War, The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Cancer, the War on Terrorism... one cannot tell the enforcers from the crooks but for the direction badges face. Government is in a symbiotic relationship with the "problem," mobilizing its polity to make insane sacrifices of personal wealth and freedom while simultaneously being disarmed and targeted to turn the crank another rev. The "problem" is meanwhile subsidized and nurtured to maintain its credible threat.

The solution to "stateless" terrorism is to revoke its carte blanche. Pick an expendable country like Syria as demo. Ablate it. Nuke it to hell - one or two MIRVs. If the lesson is not then obvious to the students, vaporize Mecca with the Ka'aba as one hypocenter, Medina as afterhought. Still slow at the daily quiz? Take out 17 million in Cairo and pop the Aswan High Dam. Let them know you care. Don't go back and fix anything. Leave the lesson in the workbook.

Japan in WWII was on a mission from god. Battlefield death rates of 90% were common, followed by suicide attacks and mass suicides of the survivors. Kamikazees, one man submarines with warheads... Curtis LeMay melted every major Japanese city save six with napalm. Civilian casualties were in seven figures. The Japanese fought on undeterred. "We will eat stones."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. God changed His mind. It was merely a matter of peeling back the layers until those who cannot be touched were stripped naked in the noonday sun. Yeah, we can touch you too.

That is the only solution to "stateless" terrorism. A martyr religion will eagerly sacrifice the greater portion of its overexpanded population - as would Bush the Lesser to feed his cronies. the enemy rears up in sudden horror when management is in the target reticle.

Do you want to win the "war" on terrorism? Go after its management and its management's friends with a broad inescapable trowel. One civilian dead is a front page tragedy. Nobody cares about 10 million dead, not even history.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#2310 07/14/05 01:18 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
DA, I know there are many people who agree with you. This is beyond a discussion of science; however, that is not what terrorism is. Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense.

#2311 07/14/05 04:04 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
DA, I know there are many people who agree with you. This is beyond a discussion of science; however, that is not what terrorism is. Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense.
So is terrorism.

#2312 07/14/05 06:09 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Sorry but this thread is a load of rubbish stacked to the ceiling.

What is a terrorist? Someone else blowing up my stuff.

What is a freedom fighter? Me blowing up someone else's stuff.

Was George Washington a freedom fighter?
Not if you asked King George III.

I find it hard to believe that anyone engages it this kind of mental nonsense after age 15.
This is a widely acknowledged observation, and I think people here know at least that much, DA.

This said, however, it is only one starting point in understanding human behavior. That is, being aware of certain political aspects of terrorism, like the one you raise, has not prevented acts of aggression, so any further attempt to delve deeper into the problem of human aggression can only be a good thing, not something to be discouraged. Summing up "terrorism" in a couple of sentences and declaring it not worthy of discussion isn't good enough.

Whether having such a discussion can be counted as science, however, is another matter altogether. If science could somehow observe all the mechanics that govern human behavior, would these observations explain what I?d tentatively call ?human nature?? Would it change anything if science did know? Even if science did know everything there was to know about how the mind works, would it then have predictive powers over human behavior? That is, using the knowledge they have on human behavior could science have some influence over real world politics, and human interaction?

I?m not sure it could. I would imagine that people would react counter intuitively if they suspected they were being manipulated in even the slightest way. If "hard" science cannot answer these questions, or cannot explain human interaction, then perhaps we should consider political science a real science. The science of human relations, or do you consider this not to be a real phenomenon?

#2313 07/14/05 11:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
That is, using the knowledge they have on human behavior could science have some influence over real world politics, and human interaction?
I do think so. The invasion of Iraq is a good example. The Neo-Cons didn't take into account what many experts knew: Some people would actively resist the occupation of Iraq.

#2314 07/14/05 12:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
DA, I know there are many people who agree with you. This is beyond a discussion of science; however, that is not what terrorism is. Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense.
DA is 100% right. What he said is certainly not nonsense. Terrorism is defined by us in such a way that what we do is not terrorism and what our opponents do is terrorism (or something else with a negative designation).


In the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union were prepaired to vaporize each other cities killing a few hundred million people. This attitude could not be justified by the underlying political disputes. The Soviet Union, at least, had a no ''first use of nuclear weapons'' policy. The US still hasn't ruled out first use of nukes.


What's the difference between Nixon threatening the Soviet Union with nuclear annihilation in case Brezhnev didn't back down from his plans to help Egypt in the Yom Kippur war and some Al Qa'ida members killing 200 people in Spain because Spain was involved in the Iraq war?

#2315 07/14/05 12:41 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
Several persons have stated that Political Science, and presumably, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology, History and Psychology are not sciences. The most intelligent and thoughtful post containing this assertion listed thoughtfully the differences between the physical sciences and the social sciences. This was done by "The Fallible Fiend".

It is worth pointing out that chemistry was alchemy a few hundred years ago and most astronomers were actually astrologers. Physics was not a science until we had Newton's three laws.

None of what we call science today was a science four hundred years ago. They became sciences only when accurate empirical observations allowed us to create accurate definitions. Given accurate observation providing accurate definitions acurate analysis became possible and they became sciences.

The difficulties enumerated by the Fiend in the social sciences are quite real. However there is no reason to believe that they are insoluble, nor is there any reason to believe that nothing in the social sciences is actual science today.

These statements reflect a profound personal bias on the part of most members of this forum.

The Fiend admits the value of attempting to find an accurate definition of terrorist. He also accurately describes the difficulties.

DA and Al as usual simply say the idea is nonsense, there is no real difference between a terrorist and a legitimate soldier. Our friends are good guys, people who shoot at us are bad guys. Al pretty much endorses terrorism as a tactic and suggests that we should nuke Syria until it glows. Set a terrorizing example for the rest of Islam.

As a retired Soldier, I naturally disagree with DA and Al. I do not see soldiers as terrorists.

When the Cole was bombed, the word terrorist was used to describe the bombers in another forum. Two persons immediately disagreed. The other was a former marine.

The Cole was a military target. No one was threatened or injured except military personnel. Two professional US trained military personnel immediately refused to call the act a terrorist act.

This is, to some degree, the difference between the US and the terrorists. The kind of indoctrination the US military gets as opposed to the kind of indoctrination terrorists get.

Science is an issue of accurate assessment of the facts, creating accurate terms with accurate definitions based on those facts, then relating those definitions to accepted scientific theory.

It can be applied in social issues as well as physical science issues, even though social issues are much more complex and political pressure much more intense. It should be applied despite those problems.

We should be looking for a definition of terrorist based on factual differences in the behavior and attitude of soldiers and terrorists, and relating those differences to fundamentals of human nature which are best derived from evolutionary pschology.

Terrorism is used to rule through the Stockholm Syndrome. http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=719&lsel=S

This is a very good discussion of the Stockholm syndrome and its role in government up to the last paragraph or two. It applies very clearly to terrorist regimes like that of Saddam Hussein.

It is an ancient and widespread method of government, prevalent in the Middle East since our earliest evidence. It is probably the dominant psychology of Government in Russia throughout its history. It is the alpha male pecking order government at its most extreme.

Republican government depends upon a different artifact of evolutionary psychology. In Republican government the territorial imperative has a strength equal to or greater than pecking order psychology. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568361440/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-4680912-4613639#reader-link

Each full Citizen in a Republic has his own sacred territory in which he is the supreme Alpha Male. He interacts as an equal when dealing with other Alphas in De Re Publica, latin for the Commonwealth or that portion of property and power which is shared by the Citizens.

In a Stockhold Syndrome or autocratic government, property rights are not guaranteed. The Supreme Alpha can violate any subjects rights at any time without question.

No such Supreme Alpha exists in a Territorial Imperative system where each individuals territory is distinct, sacred, and defended by the laws of the state.

Terrorism is a methodology of Stockholm Syndrome social systems. Human rights, especially property rights are an artifact of Territorial Imperative social systems.

Members of Stockholm Syndrome systems have no emotional conception of human rights, property rights, etc. They are totally pecking order oriented. Persons with a background in Republican or Territorial Imperative systems see full Citizens as being invested with certain dignities and rights that no authority can violate with impunity. The two systems are psychologically alien to each other, though both are based on artifacts of human psychology originating in evolution, territoriality and pecking order behavior.

Because Territorial Imperative systems involve the possession of territory, they are typical of the early agrarian semi-rural period of economic development. Such as early Rome of the 13 Colonies. Stockholm Syndrome tends to become dominant in highly rural populations. As in the Roman Principate.

Terrorism is enabled by Stockholm Syndrome or extreme Pecking Order behavior systems because these systems do not recognize the existence of equals and deny any rights to inferiors. Terrorists assume absolute authority as the divine representative of this or that belief system and feel an absolute right to do anything to others needed to advance their beliefs.

The dominant psychology in the US has always been the Territorial Imperative. This may be changing today, but it was true in the past. Thus the US has never been a 'Terrorist' nation.

Now, both sides have 'alpha males'. In a Stockholm Syndrome system, there can be only one. All others must be inferior and obedient to the one. In a Territorial System, there are many, and they learn to interact as equals and allies while respecting each others territory.

This is the fundamental of human rights psychology. That fundamental leads to rules regarding the treatment of others and restraint in how you treat them.

This is an attempt to relate the behavioral difference between terrorists and soldiers to evolutionary psychology. Much of it would be familiar to Jefferson, Adams, and Washington.

#2316 07/14/05 02:23 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
Let us consider Somalia, Vietnam, and the current War on Terror in terms of the Territorial Imperative vs. Stockholm Syndrome behaviors.

Both Somalia and Vietnam involved US military involvement in a foreign territory. Thus, the US being inherently Territorial oriented felt wrong in the gut at being there. This made the US people willing to get out as soon as sustained resistance became apparent.

To a Stockholm Syndrome oriented person the US retreat from Vietnam and Somalia represents a subordinate in the pecking order bowing to fear. The real US gut dislike of violating another peoples territory did not enter into the thinking.

Thus the fundamental misunderstanding of US psychology which has led to Islamic Terrorism against the US. Not understanding how important Territoriality is to US gut emotions they could not realistically evaluate the effect that terrorist acts on US soil, violating US territoriality would have.

They anticipated that attacking the US on US soil would terrify the US into submission. Instead such attacks such as Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers outrage the US as violations of US territory.

The same psychological artifact which makes the US awkward in wars involving other peoples territory makes them adamant in wars defending their own territory.

This psychology, based as it is on mutual respect of territoriality is alien to Stockholm Syndrome societies, like that of Terrorist Islam.

It is alien and incomprehensible to them.

The outrage against Israel in Islam is not so much territorially as pecking order driven. Islam became dominant very rapidly early in its history, and while tolerant in the early years of other religions, they were and remained for a millenium or so at the top of the pecking order in Islamic territories.

They are outraged at violation of the pecking order status of Muslims by non-Muslims. While there are territorial disputes involved, the psychology of the struggle is not primarily territorial but pecking order.

Since their world view involves Islam as the highest authority in the world at the top of the Pecking Order, they cannot comprehend anything like non-Muslims having human rights. All 'rights' of non-Muslims are the charity of the strong to the weak. When the weak demand them as rights instead of charity, they become outraged at the arrogance and viciousness of the ungrateful weak. This results in terrorist attacks on the 'weak'. Muslim employers in the US have been known to deny their employees the right to eat ham, while demanding respect for their own religion. This is the one sided psychology of pecking order behavior. The strong have rights the weak do not.

Since, in the real world, Islam is weak and non-Muslims strong, there is going to be a considerable shock for Islam over the next few decades. They will not be able to comprehend reality until it is driven home with the muzzle of a gun. Muslim terrorists live in a fantasy world in which Allah will provide them with miraculous victories over the Infidel. Their faith is not based on the belief that Allah sent Muhammed to be a prophet providing guidance in the Koran and Sharia for men to live better lives.

Their belief lies in the idea that Allah guarantees miraculous military triumph to Islam.

Muhammed, however, did come to give guidance for better lives. His warfare was largely reluctant and forced on him. The early Jihads were largely accidental and unintentional. In worshipping military victory and personal vanity instead of focusing on using the teaching of Muhammed to live better lives, the terrorists are worshiping false idols and not true Muslims.

If Allah exists, I doubt he will be giving any military aid to people who worship their own pride and vanity instead of him. If Allah exists, the he would probably be using the West to humble the pride of these men, rather than strengthening their pride and vanity with undeserved victories.

Regardless of the questionable existence of Allah, things look bad for Islam over the next few decades. Pecking order psychology destroys freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and thus cripples industry, science, and the other things which make the West mighty and powerful.

Until Islam reforms it will be unable to face or even comprehend the West.

#2317 07/14/05 02:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
"In a Territorial System, there are many, and they learn to interact as equals and allies while respecting each others territory."

Theoretically speaking.

#2318 07/14/05 04:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Responses to a few of you:

To: TheFallibleFiend
You wrote: "Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense."

Actually what I wrote is the cold hard truth and what you are engaging in is flights of fantasy. Lets consider the facts. We, the US, took out the lawfully elected government of Panama and still have their leader in a jail in our country? What gave us the right to overthrow their government? Lets look at Iraq. How many civilians have been killed by terrorists in the last two years compared to the number killed by the US military?
And no I am not making a value judgement here. Lets look at the civilians killed by US oil companies via their hired mercenaries in third-world countries? Terrorism?

If you haven't the courage to point to yourself when you are wrong you have no moral or ethical standing except as a self-serving hypocrite.


DA Morgan
#2319 07/14/05 04:59 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Responses to a few of you:

To: Rusty

Delving into terrorism will not stop it. We know the cause ... if you or I were forced by circumstance to live in those countries under those circumstances likely we too would be carrying an AK47.

We know how to stop it ... (1) stop meddling in their countries in a manner we wouldn't wish to have them meddle in ours? How quickly we forget that we, US and British, overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because it was threatening to take control of Iran's oil fields away from US and British oil firms. A case of remarkably self-serving and convenient meory. But certainly all of this is not our meddling so (2) terrorism costs money ... lots of it. So far we have done little or nothing to cut off terrorism's oxygen supply.

Which leads to the question you should be asking and that is "Why are we doing almost nothing to actually fight terrorism?"

Why is part of Pakistan off-limits?

Why did we let Osama bin Laden slip away by using totally unreliable people to try to take Tora Bora?

Why is Al Qaida not classified under the RICO act, Racketeering, Influenced, and Corrupt Organizations as organized crime as is the mafia?

Why is it that terrorism financiers bank accounts and financing have not been closed down?

and the list is endless.

When you have the courage to answer the "Why" then you will know that it is almost irrelevant. No one really cares that once in 5 years an incident occured that killed fewer people than alcohol on the highways in one year. It was political fodder used to gain political advantages. And anyone that thinks anything is "actually" being done is a fool.

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature can hijaack an airplane anytime they want. If airplanes are not being hijaacked it is because no one chooses to do so ... not because we are more secure.


DA Morgan
#2320 07/14/05 05:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Responses to a few of you:

To: Count Iblis II
Wrote: "Terrorism is defined by us in such a way that what we do is not terrorism and what our opponents do is terrorism."

Absolutely true. And those that haven't the intelligence or the integrity to see this are the primary problem. We are not entirely blameless for what has happened.

Certainly we can pat ourselves on the back and say we don't blow up innocent women and children. But isn't it amazing how simple it was for one of us, the obvious Falliable Field so quickly forgot that we called it an act of terrorism when someone blew up two embassies in Africa? Were there innocent civilians inside those embassies? How about when they put a hole in a US naval warship? Was that ship's mission purely humanitarian and all of the sailors young innocent children? And yet every bit of media the west could muster labelled it an act of TERRORISM.

So yes we are human and self-serving and label what we do freedom fighting and what they do terrorism. And those of us that are not total hypocrites know that they look into the mirror and do the exact same thing.

What is critical to solving the problem is for us to hold OUR OWN government accountable for the conditions that have allowed it to be born, to prosper, and especially those that have used it for cynical self-serving political purposes.

Me? I'd like them all to go away and leave me to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likely not an unusual dream.


DA Morgan
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5