|
Tuesday, 16 December 2003
When so many lives hinge on the understanding of the word "terrorism". It is only necessary that we should make an effort to comprehend the significance of this word. Not only does it influence every aspect of our life, it also carries serious legal guise.
According to the U.S. Congress, terrorism is defined as:
"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furthurance of political or social objectives".
Based on this definition, the government has justified countless conflicts in which they try to direct the lives of those who may choose to disagree with their ideology.
The definitions they create usually try to distinguish between warfare and terrorism, but the line quickly becomes blurred. They consider attacks on non-combatants, terrorism, but they consider non-combatant targets both civilians and military personnel off-duty or unarmed at the time. When the Chinook was shot down in Iraq on November 2, 2003 by an RPG, it was considered by many to be an act of terrorism, and yet the people who shot it down were simply enemy soldiers fighting a war to defend their homeland. They neither attacked civilians nor off-duty personnel, and yet, the people of America have branded them as terrorists.
It's easy to be convinced that states cannot commit terrorism because it gets the U.S. and its allies off the hook. But in fact, the U.S. has committed countless acts of terrorism according to its own definition. One example of this hostile, terroristic action, was when the U.S. invaded Nicaragua in the 1980's. The assault on Nicaragua directly caused tens of thousands of senseless deaths. The disturbing fact of this conflict is not the amount of lives lost, but the reason it was fought. The U.S. invaded Nicaragua simply because they did not support the popular Marxist regime that had been in power. They were trying to intimidate and coerce the Nicaraguan government to comply with their own political doctrines. Consequently, the United States was found guilty of international terrorism by a world court in 1986. To know one's surprise the U.S. vetoed a resolution that would require all states to follow international law. Perhaps the Nicaraguans would view the United States as domestic terrorists.
The U.S. government defines domestic terrorism as:
"Activities that APPEAR to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion".
This definition is so incredibly vague, that any person may be labeled a domestic terrorist. Anyone who publicly disagrees with the government could potentially be classified as a domestic terrorist. The only criterion is that someone, somewhere, believes that they are trying to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion.
Perhaps one cause of terrorism is the fact that there is a gap of military technology between nations. The U.S. and its allies want the rest of the world to play "fair", because their perception of "fair" greatly favors themselves. They like to believe that it is fair when a man with an AK47 takes pot shots at a stealth fighter in the dead of night.
Since the U.S. and Israel are like "buddy-buddy", they have similar beliefs on terrorism. Israel is just afraid of announcing their views because the lie in the region of these terroristic countries, the Middle East. The Israeli government includes any kind of attack, from throwing stones to planting bombs, a terrorist attack. There believe there are two types of terrorist attacks: suicide bombers and no-escape fighters.
100% of these types of terrorists are Muslims. The fact is that their religion specifically prohibits the killing of innocents and of committing suicide. If so, then why do these Muslim terrorists kill innocent people and commit suicide? Is it for a "good cause"? The main motivating force for these types of terrorists is the desire for spectacular revenge.
Would you be proud of your family members if they committed suicide? No, we would probably feel sad and horrified by their actions. This is not true with the Muslim suicide bombers and their families. they do not feel sorry for them. They feel proud and would do the same as them if they were given the chance. These are some reactions by a couple families of suicide bombers:
A man named Hassan had a son who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv discotheque. He said, "I am very happy and proud of what my son did and I hope all the men of Palestine and Jordan will do the same."
Raania, the pregnant wife of the Hamas militant Ali Julani and a mother of three, had a similar reaction. Her husband took part in a no-escape attack in Tel Aviv. She said, "I am very proud of him. I am even prouder for my children, whose father was a hero. I want to tell the Israelis that I support my husband and I support people like him." Was she angry with him for leaving his children fatherless? "He left us in the mercy of God. He was raised as an orphan and the way he was raised so his children will be raised."
Posted by rishiben
at 6:06 PM EST
When so many lives hinge on the understanding of the word "terrorism". It is only necessary that we should make an effort to comprehend the significance of this word. Not only does it influence every aspect of our life, it also carries serious legal guise.
According to the U.S. Congress, terrorism is defined as:
"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furthurance of political or social objectives".
Based on this definition, the government has justified countless conflicts in which they try to direct the lives of those who may choose to disagree with their ideology.
The definitions they create usually try to distinguish between warfare and terrorism, but the line quickly becomes blurred. They consider attacks on non-combatants, terrorism, but they consider non-combatant targets both civilians and military personnel off-duty or unarmed at the time. When the Chinook was shot down in Iraq on November 2, 2003 by an RPG, it was considered by many to be an act of terrorism, and yet the people who shot it down were simply enemy soldiers fighting a war to defend their homeland. They neither attacked civilians nor off-duty personnel, and yet, the people of America have branded them as terrorists.
It's easy to be convinced that states cannot commit terrorism because it gets the U.S. and its allies off the hook. But in fact, the U.S. has committed countless acts of terrorism according to its own definition. One example of this hostile, terroristic action, was when the U.S. invaded Nicaragua in the 1980's. The assault on Nicaragua directly caused tens of thousands of senseless deaths. The disturbing fact of this conflict is not the amount of lives lost, but the reason it was fought. The U.S. invaded Nicaragua simply because they did not support the popular Marxist regime that had been in power. They were trying to intimidate and coerce the Nicaraguan government to comply with their own political doctrines. Consequently, the United States was found guilty of international terrorism by a world court in 1986. To know one's surprise the U.S. vetoed a resolution that would require all states to follow international law. Perhaps the Nicaraguans would view the United States as domestic terrorists.
The U.S. government defines domestic terrorism as:
"Activities that APPEAR to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion".
This definition is so incredibly vague, that any person may be labeled a domestic terrorist. Anyone who publicly disagrees with the government could potentially be classified as a domestic terrorist. The only criterion is that someone, somewhere, believes that they are trying to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion.
Perhaps one cause of terrorism is the fact that there is a gap of military technology between nations. The U.S. and its allies want the rest of the world to play "fair", because their perception of "fair" greatly favors themselves. They like to believe that it is fair when a man with an AK47 takes pot shots at a stealth fighter in the dead of night.
Since the U.S. and Israel are like "buddy-buddy", they have similar beliefs on terrorism. Israel is just afraid of announcing their views because the lie in the region of these terroristic countries, the Middle East. The Israeli government includes any kind of attack, from throwing stones to planting bombs, a terrorist attack. There believe there are two types of terrorist attacks: suicide bombers and no-escape fighters.
100% of these types of terrorists are Muslims. The fact is that their religion specifically prohibits the killing of innocents and of committing suicide. If so, then why do these Muslim terrorists kill innocent people and commit suicide? Is it for a "good cause"? The main motivating force for these types of terrorists is the desire for spectacular revenge.
Would you be proud of your family members if they committed suicide? No, we would probably feel sad and horrified by their actions. This is not true with the Muslim suicide bombers and their families. they do not feel sorry for them. They feel proud and would do the same as them if they were given the chance. These are some reactions by a couple families of suicide bombers:
A man named Hassan had a son who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv discotheque. He said, "I am very happy and proud of what my son did and I hope all the men of Palestine and Jordan will do the same."
Raania, the pregnant wife of the Hamas militant Ali Julani and a mother of three, had a similar reaction. Her husband took part in a no-escape attack in Tel Aviv. She said, "I am very proud of him. I am even prouder for my children, whose father was a hero. I want to tell the Israelis that I support my husband and I support people like him." Was she angry with him for leaving his children fatherless? "He left us in the mercy of God. He was raised as an orphan and the way he was raised so his children will be raised."
Posted by rishiben
at 5:53 PM EST
When so many lives hinge on the understanding of the word "terrorism". It is only necessary that we should make an effort to comprehend the significance of this word.
According to the U.S. Congress, terrorism is defined as:
"An activity that appears to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"
Based on this definition, the government has justified countless conflicts in which they try to regulate the lives of those who may choose to disagree with their ideology.
The definitions they create usually try to distinguish between warfare and terrorism, but the line quickly becomes blurred. (Which begs the question "how you can have a war on terror?") They consider attacks on non-combatants targets of terrorism, but they consider non-combatant targets both civilians and military personnel off-duty or unarmed at the time. When the Chinook was shot down in Iraq by an RPG, it was considered by many to be an act of terrorism, and yet the people who shot it down were simply enemy soldiers fighting a war to defend their homeland. They neither attacked civilians nor off-duty personnel, and yet, the people of America have branded them as terrorists.
It's easy to believe that states cannot commit terrorism because it gets the U.S. and its allies off the hook. But in fact, the U.S. has committed countless acts of terrorism according to its own definition. One example of this hostile, terroristic action, was when the U.S. invaded Nicaragua in 1986. The assault on Nicaragua directly caused tens of thousands of senselessly innocent butchered deaths. The disturbing fact of this conflict is not due to the amount of lives lost, but the reason it was fought. The U.S. invaded Nicaragua simply because they did not support the popular Marxist regime that had been in power. They were trying to intimidate and coerce the Nicaraguan government to comply with their own political doctrines.
The U.S. government defines domestic terrorism as:
"Activities that APPEAR to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion".
This definition is so dangerously vague, that any person may be labeled a terrorist. Anyone who disagrees with the government could potentially be classified as a domestic terrorist. The only criterion is that someone, somewhere, believes that they are trying to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion. Perhaps one cause of terrorism is the fact that there is a gap of military technology between nations. The U.S. and its allies want the rest of the world to play "fair", because their perception of "fair" greatly favors themselves. They like to believe that it is fair when a man with an AK 47 takes pot shots at a stealth fighter in the dead of night.
Since the U.S. and Israel are like "buddy-buddy", they have similar beliefs on terrorism. Israel is just afraid of announcing their views because the lie in the region of these terroristic countries, the Middle East. The Israeli government includes any kind of attack, from throwing stones to planting bombs, a terrorist attack. There believe there are two types of terrorist attacks: suicide bombers and no-escape fighters.
100% of these types of terrorists are Muslims. The fact is that their religion specifically prohibits the killing of innocents and of committing suicide. If so, then why do these Muslim terrorists kill innocent people and commit suicide? Is it for a "good cause"? The main motivating force for these types of terrorists is the desire for spectacular revenge.
Would you be proud of your family members if they committed suicide? No, we would probably feel sad and horrified by their actions. This is not true with the Muslim suicide bombers and their families. they do not feel sorry for them. They feel proud and would do the same as them if they were given the chance. These are some reactions by a couple families of suicide bombers:
A man named Hassan had a son who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv discotheque. He said, "I am very happy and proud of what my son did and I hope all the men of Palestine and Jordan will do the same."
Raania, the pregnant wife of the Hamas militant Ali Julani and a mother of three, had a similar reaction. Her husband took part in a no-escape attack in Tel Aviv. She said, "I am very proud of him. I am even prouder for my children, whose father was a hero. I want to tell the Israelis that I support my husband and I support people like him." Was she angry with him for leaving his children fatherless? "He left us in the mercy of God. He was raised as an orphan and the way he was raised so his children will be raised."
Posted by rishiben
at 5:28 PM EST
Newer | Latest | Older
|
