01-05-2002 06:54									#181
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The US seemed to think that the UCK (in Kosovo) were guerrilas, and we do the same about the Chechens.

And the US was wrong.

	01-05-2002 08:10									#182
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I agree that we really need a clear definition of terrorism that's consistent and is not seletive based upon interest, i.e., is not hypocritical. Many, if not most Americans think that Chairman Arafat fits the description of a terrorist because he authorizes terror, buys the explosives and pays the bombers. If we cannot tolerate mullah Omar of the Taliban because he sheltered terrorists in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, how can we tolerate Chairman Arafat who has done considerably more than simply shelter terrorists?

Ned

	01-05-2002 08:29									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Good question Ned.

	01-05-2002 19:21									#184
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: A basic definition of a terrorist would be a non-govermental person or organization that takes action against a civilian for political motives.

The Taliban therefor aren't terrorists.
Sadam Husein isn't a terrorist.
The UCK therefor are.
What are the Hezbollah (sp?) and FARC?

Also, it seem a rather unfair and biased definition. If the Indonesian governement wipes out Ambonese or Moluk civilians it isn't terrorism, but when those people retaliate by doing the exact same thing (killing civilians) they are terrorists. Makes no sense.

	01-05-2002 19:25									#185
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Also, it seem a rather unfair and biased definition.

Most definitions of terrorism get accussed of such things. Why do you think that there are so many definitions?

What is your definition anyway?

	01-05-2002 19:39									#186
	Suffering from ads?

Well, any definition must include both governements and NGOs, or discount acts against civilians as terrorism in theathers of war.

I know, way too broad definition still. But in the Indonesian example I described, a definition either has to count both parties as terrorists, or discount both parties as terrorists.

	01-05-2002 19:46									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The use of fear of physical harm to civilians or their property for political purposes.

	01-05-2002 19:48									#188
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"terrorism" is to spread fear among population to force it to accept your view.
There is which will can be called the "standard" terrorism (IRA, Palestinians bombing, Ben Laden, ETA...) and the "state terrorism" (stalinism, fascism, Pinochet, Israël repression, China...).

	01-05-2002 20:06									#189
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Akka le Vil: good definition. However, this does mean the allies in WW2 are (state)terrorists. (terror bombings in Germany, the a-bomb in Japan).

	01-05-2002 20:12									#190
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus The Taliban therefor aren't terrorists. Sadam Husein isn't a terrorist. The UCK therefor are. What are the Hezbollah (sp?) and FARC?

By my definition the Taliban and Sadam Husein are not terrorists. They support terrorists that attack other countries though. I consider that an act of war, and we finally have a president who see's it that way too.

The KLA maybe somewhere in between. I've read that they wear identifying insignia and attack police and military that would make them guerrillas or freedom fighters. If they've specifically targetted civilians in order to incite terror (as opposed to civilian casualties during an attack on a legitimate target) then they're terrorists.

Hezbollah have committed acts of terrorism. Guess what, they're terrorists!

I dont know anything about FARC but the same rules apply.

quote: Also, it seem a rather unfair and biased definition. If the Indonesian governement wipes out Ambonese or Moluk civilians it isn't terrorism, but when those people retaliate by doing the exact same thing (killing civilians) they are terrorists. Makes no sense.

My definition does become unclear when applied to a government that uses terror against its own people but such actions can be labelled as atrocities for example. Retaliation for such actions against civilians instead of against the government that carries such actions out is still terrorism.

If you want to be a freedom fighter, put on a uniform (of some kind) and fight your "oppressors". Targeting civilians who cant fight back is simply cowardice.

	01-05-2002 21:11									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

See? You're totally confused...

So stop messing with things you can't understand and stop suporting your president when he throws accusations of terrorism all around the world, as an excuse for his actions.

Okay?

	01-05-2002 21:12									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: If you want to be a freedom fighter, put on a uniform (of some kind) and fight your "oppressors". Targeting civilians who cant fight back is simply cowardice.

Thus, if Al Qaida starts issuing standard uniforms for their troops, they cease to be terrorists?

Also, in the indonesian example. In the war against terrorism the terrorists are fought, even if they are doing the exact same things as the governements.

Plus, the US also supports/supported terrorists (like the UCK).

	01-05-2002 21:17									#193
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Uniforms wouldn't change the fact that Al Qaida attacks mostly civilians. And it's quite hard to get on a passenger-plane in a uniform.

	01-05-2002 21:18									#194
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Plus, the US [& EU] also supports/supported terrorists (like the UCK).

Yes, I would agree with that statement especially after I edited it.

	01-05-2002 21:21									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Also, as I've mentioned once or twice before, the other allies in the war against terrorism are not exacly run by regimes with a perfect record.

Turkey is leadning the alliance in Afghanistan now. What are they gonna do? It's not like they need to learn to repress etnic, political and religious minorites...

	01-05-2002 21:50									#196
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by axi See? You're totally confused... So stop messing with things you can't understand and stop suporting your president when he throws accusations of terrorism all around the world, as an excuse for his actions. Okay?

I suspect that I understand them considerably better than many others here. I dont support the overuse of the word terrorist. As I stated above supporting terrorists that have attacked this country is an act of war. Now its a question of the best way to deal with it.

	01-05-2002 21:58									#197
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Thus, if Al Qaida starts issuing standard uniforms for their troops, they cease to be terrorists?

I thought it was fairly clear. If Al Qaida put on uniforms and attacked military targets they would not be terrorists. That doesnt mean that we wouldnt or shouldnt kill them in retaliation. It simply means I wouldnt define them as terrorists.

quote: Also, in the indonesian example. In the war against terrorism the terrorists are fought, even if they are doing the exact same things as the governements.

?

quote: Plus, the US also supports/supported terrorists (like the UCK).

If the US continued to support a group that were proven to be terrorists then it would have the same position as Iraq or the Taliban but I dont believe that is the case.

	01-05-2002 22:01									#198
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin Uniforms wouldn't change the fact that Al Qaida attacks mostly civilians. And it's quite hard to get on a passenger-plane in a uniform.

Thats right.

	01-05-2002 22:21									#199
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Akka le Vil "terrorism" is to spread fear among population to force it to accept your view. There is which will can be called the "standard" terrorism (IRA, Palestinians bombing, Ben Laden, ETA...) and the "state terrorism" (stalinism, fascism, Pinochet, Israël repression, China...).

I like this. But were people like Huns also terrorists? They certainly spead terror among the populations of Europe, but not to accept their "views," but to accept their rule or to maximize their tribute.

Ned

	01-05-2002 22:25									#200
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm sorry, but what or who are the UCK? Ned

	01-05-2002 22:26									#201
	Get a bigger avatar today!

UCK = Kosovo Liberation Army

	01-05-2002 23:33									#202
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned I like this. But were people like Huns also terrorists? They certainly spead terror among the populations of Europe, but not to accept their "views," but to accept their rule or to maximize their tribute. Ned

It's why they are commonly called "raiders", "plunderers", "looters" or "conquerors"