2NaFish Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 When its not a towelhead. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8522746.stm "The White House said this did not appear to be an act of terrorism" - Clearly i do not know what terrorism is. I await the limbuaghs and becks of the american media to portray this man as some sort of libertarian hero. When in actuality he flew a plane into a building because he didnt like american government policy; and no matter what you say it is not comparable to any other terrorist event. Nope, not one bit.m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Unbelieveable! The White House are so up their own arse! Still, nice to see that the lessons of 9/11 have been learnt. BTW, will also be interesting to hear the White House's take on the Hamas dude who was assassinated in the UAE. Israel is the main suspect and this would be state sponsored terrorism, the prime reason we are in Afghanistan, but will action be taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabyarsebiscuit Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 When its not a towelhead. http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8522746.stm "The White House said this did not appear to be an act of terrorism" - Clearly i do not know what terrorism is. I await the limbuaghs and becks of the american media to portray this man as some sort of libertarian hero. When in actuality he flew a plane into a building because he didnt like american government policy; and no matter what you say it is not comparable to any other terrorist event. Nope, not one bit.m That's exactly what he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 When its not a towelhead. http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8522746.stm "The White House said this did not appear to be an act of terrorism" - Clearly i do not know what terrorism is. I await the limbuaghs and becks of the american media to portray this man as some sort of libertarian hero. When in actuality he flew a plane into a building because he didnt like american government policy; and no matter what you say it is not comparable to any other terrorist event. Nope, not one bit.m Yeah...they got themselves a big ol case of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottish_chicP Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Is it political though? Serious question as I haven't actually read the whole article but I thought terrorism was all to do with political stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 When its not a towelhead. http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8522746.stm "The White House said this did not appear to be an act of terrorism" - Clearly i do not know what terrorism is. I await the limbuaghs and becks of the american media to portray this man as some sort of libertarian hero. When in actuality he flew a plane into a building because he didnt like american government policy; and no matter what you say it is not comparable to any other terrorist event. Nope, not one bit.m I know if I was looking out the window of that building and saw a plane coming at me I'd be f****** terrorized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1" This guy hoped to promote change through the use of violence/terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Is it political though? Serious question as I haven't actually read the whole article but I thought terrorism was all to do with political stuff. yes its political, but terrorism neednt necessarily be political anyway. this cant be allowed to be seen as terrorism as it doesnt fit the media's understanding of modern day terrorism, which is why i havent seen this mentioned on the one o'clock news, and furthermore because it would not sit well with america's war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 yes its political, but terrorism neednt necessarily be political anyway. this cant be allowed to be seen as terrorism as it doesnt fit the media's understanding of modern day terrorism, which is why i havent seen this mentioned on the one o'clock news, and furthermore because it would not sit well with america's war on terror. translation: commited by those brown of face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1" This guy hoped to promote change through the use of violence/terror. had it been a muslim would this be major news that's described as terrorism though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottish_chicP Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Fair enough I read it as : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for. But obviously thats just one link! I thought it was a bit strange when I heard about it that it hadn't been largely publicised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Fair enough I read it as : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for. But obviously thats just one link! I thought it was a bit strange when I heard about it that it hadn't been largely publicised. that must be the one from www.americangovernmentandwhatyoushouldthinkabouttheterribleworldwelivein.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottish_chicP Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 that must be the one from www.americangovernmentandwhatyoushouldthinkabouttheterribleworldwelivein.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Fair enough I read it as : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for. But obviously thats just one link! I thought it was a bit strange when I heard about it that it hadn't been largely publicised. There are so many things wrong with the collection of statements you have made, I dont know where to start ChicP. Someone else can have a go. Your western biased islamic fundamentalist view of terrorism wouldnt wash with the French Revolutionaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottish_chicP Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 There are so many things wrong with the collection of statements you have made, I dont know where to start ChicP. Someone else can have a go. Your western biased islamic fundamentalist view of terrorism wouldnt wash with the French Revolutionaries. Can I just add I am fairly dumb on the subject and that wasn't actually my view I was merely asking so someone could enlighten me. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Can I just add I am fairly dumb on the subject and that wasn't actually my view I was merely asking so someone could enlighten me. Cheers. The definition you posted is a slightly racist, narrow minded view of terrorism, the sort that would be held by your average american. In reality Terrorism is as simple as causing terror/trouble/fear to persuade people to cooperate with your view. Ironically, causing fear to get people to cooperate with your view sounds very like the American/British governments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottish_chicP Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 The definition you posted is a slightly racist, narrow minded view of terrorism, the sort that would be held by your average american. In reality Terrorism is as simple as causing terror/trouble/fear to persuade people to cooperate with your view. Ironically, causing fear to get people to cooperate with your view sounds very like the American/British governments Yeah as I say that wasn't actually my view and I had copied and pasted it from another website. I was just trying to find out the definition of terrorism as I wasn't sure. I only copied the first one I found but never claimed that was my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Interesting to see the building still standing...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big D Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Genuine question, as it's not a subject I know much about. Were the Crusades terrorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Genuine question, as it's not a subject I know much about. Were the Crusades terrorist? i'd class them as conquest. or an attempted conquest. anyway its anachronistic to use pejorative terms such as terrorism when talking about events that happened almost a millenia ago. acts such as richard the lionheart's massacre at acre would be an atrocious war crime by todays standards but in context were acceptable by the rules of conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big D Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 OK. So because it happened a long time ago it's fine and has no bearing on any present conflicts. And here was me thinking history wasn't the continuing justification for todays absurd conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 OK. So because it happened a long time ago it's fine and has no bearing on any present conflicts. And here was me thinking history wasn't the continuing justification for todays absurd conflicts. i didnt say it doesnt have a bearing. i said for us to judge medieval acts by today's standards is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.