Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/21/03 08:47 PM, nailbomb wrote: Was Che Guevara a terrorist?

You make some sense, anyways Che was a hero, he fought against an unjust government and was killed by people he never bothered, i cant begin to explain the how horrible the loss of this man was to the world

I think this thread has fallen in to your average "terrorists are bad" trap. Terrorists are just soldiers without a country (and thus poorly funded, which means they have limited means.)

Armies kill people

Terrorists kill people

They are morally the same.

Well the definition of terrorism, I think, is bad. What you may mean may be something similar.

by reading everyones posts i have to say that terrorism is just like the words intelligence an goth, the group of goths all have different definitions for the word goth and intelligence is a word but since we cannot clearly define it we may never know when an "intelligent" computer (AI) may exist.

to me terrorism is the only way for the "underdog" to bring the attack on the enemies soil and making it an all more real war for the enemy, this is a stretegically(i know its mispelled) a better form of war since the "terrorist" have no home nor a civillian populace. it is also a way to make the opposing force fear and loathe the "terrorist" making the terrorist all the more a stronger looking force and more fearfull one.

when i compared the vietcong and the terrorist today i was saying that the vietcong used a totally new way of warfare never before seen by the opposing force but was quickly adopted by it

if the US and britain use propaganda campaigns and lies to get people to come over to their side, support countries that have murdered thousands of civilians (such as israel), support or have supported in the past terrorist organisations such as the IRA (obviously, im not implying that britain supports the ira), then why for fucks sake whould arabs not use an unconventional form of warfare such as terrorism? i know that in this case, militant arabs are not a lot better that the US or britain, but do they not have the right to fend off the intrusion of western moral ideas and jewish capitalism into the islamic world? the american constitution states that everybody has the right to his religion. do muslims not have the right to their religion, as extreme as it may be? and i stress "extreme". there are laws in islam, that are regarded as extreme by most non-arabic people, yet are widely accepted by arabs. and i believe that this is why most people think badly of muslims. americans, who have never even been out of their country, nor have any indepth knowledge of islam suddenly state that it is too extreme or evil. now this is just the kind of thinking that i dispise. i regard it as illegal to change a religion that has existed for more than a thousand years. and the terrorists who fight against america feel that western intrusion into the islamic world is a direct attack on their religion. and for obvious reasons i cannot blame them for thinking that, neither should you.

At 6/22/03 12:05 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: ok well, there is the problem. we both have different definitions of terrorism. i take terrorism to be any organized, violent act that is not legitimate warfare as defined by the geneva conventions, so of course some, if not most of that can be morally justified by some standards or another.

Yes, I would say we are at an impasse. I don't agree with violations of the Geneva Convention...I also don't feel that you can can call ANY and ALL violations an act of terroism...I mean, is it terroism when American soldiers covered the head of the statue of Saddam with an American Flag...I don't feel it was, overzealous, stupid, disrespectful, sends a message an Imperialist message...but terroistic? No, and certainly no as you and I can agree that our definitions of terroism cover only organized acts of violence.

i really wish diplomacy could solve everything. i have some faith in it, but right now american diplomacy is such crap. i want to join the diplomatic corps and/or work my way into a policy making think tank after college not because i agree with how the us executed diplomacy now, but because i want to change how it operates. its really depressing how many good diplomatic opportunities are wasted by the us in the name or oil and saving the haliburton company. *sigh*

I think diplomacy can solve MOST things, and I'm happy to hear that you've set a goal to go in and change the policies...I'd like to see more people in power who care about the people of America, rather than the concerns of large corporations.

plus most terroristic organizations could never benefit from american diplomacy as it exists today, so in that way i cant say they are wrong.

Ah, but here's a sticking point with me, most terroist organizations can't benefit true...and why can't they benefit? Because many of them explicitly state their goal to be the destruction of America, it's culture, it's people, and it's ideals...now how can you say it that such an ideology, the destruction of a people, the banishment of their ideals, is in any way right? How can you say (especially as a moral relativist, someone who does not believe in moral absolutes, that there is always a right and a wrong) that they have the right to do so? My point is some causes are just wrong, insane, destructive, or a combination of the three. Someone like Osama Bin Laden's ideology should not be put ahead of the right to live of a nation like the United States.

oh and another questin, is there anyone else here from the nyc area who agrees with me? i consider myself half form ny even tho i live in philly sinc ei was born there, my entire mothers side of the family lives there, and i have lived there every summer of my life.

I'm from New Jersey...about two ours or so from NYC...so I don't think I qualify :)

I'm just wondering, but can anyone define terrorism as opposed to freeedom fighting?

At 6/22/03 04:14 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: I'm just wondering, but can anyone define terrorism as opposed to freeedom fighting?

It depends on who the terrorists are and what their reasons for terroristic acts. But some person decided to use the word "terror" and create a new word that would define an active soldier during times of apparent peace. When there is a war officialy going on, terrorists become guerrillas; an army not affiliated with their country's government.

At 6/22/03 06:17 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/22/03 04:14 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

When there is a war officialy going on, terrorists become guerrillas; an army not affiliated with their country's government.

ahhh... gotta love guerilla warfare...

VIVA CAMILIO CIENFUEGOS!!!

¡Viva Che! ¡Hasta la victoria siempre! ¡Viva el DAG!

viva la revolucion

At 6/22/03 04:14 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: I'm just wondering, but can anyone define terrorism as opposed to freeedom fighting?

its impossible to do this...

the only true definition of a terrorist is someone that kills others for political, personal, national gain... which then includes every human being that has killed somebody...

At 6/22/03 06:51 PM, nailbomb wrote: ¡Viva Che! ¡Hasta la victoria siempre! ¡Viva el DAG!

Can we confine our posts to the topic at hand? Instead of kissing the club you belong to's ass? Thanks a lot, appreciate it.

At 6/22/03 07:12 PM, karasz wrote:

At 6/22/03 04:14 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: I'm just wondering, but can anyone define terrorism as opposed to freeedom fighting?

its impossible to do this...

the only true definition of a terrorist is someone that kills others for political, personal, national gain... which then includes every human being that has killed somebody...

now thats not quite true. a terrorist is somebody who incites fear in a civilian population by killing or injuring them for a non-personal reason, however one is a terrorist only when he is sane and does it in the open, for all people to see. any assassin who kills a civilian in the open is a terrorist. however if he kills in secret, he is a murderer. this discription would be far more accurate than yours.

Terrorism: premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an audience

I think the definition of terrorism should be broadened to include state terrorism.

I feel that the government defines the Terrorism on the basis of the identity of its perpetrator rather than by the action itself. If Israel launches a massive attack on Lebanon and purposely drives out many people from their homes, openly threatens and targets Lebanon's civilians but states that all this was intended to pressure the Lebanese government (as Israel did in 1996) is does not fall under the definition of terrorism. Now if the Lebanese people organize themselves to resist and internationally condemned foreign occupation of its land it is termed as terrorism even if they restricted their targets to enemy combatants.

At 6/22/03 12:33 AM, Kenney333 wrote:

At 6/21/03 08:47 PM, nailbomb wrote: Was Che Guevara a terrorist?

You make some sense, anyways Che was a hero, he fought against an unjust government and was killed by people he never bothered, i cant begin to explain the how horrible the loss of this man was to the world

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Che realized that armed struggle and violence, was the only way to win a revolution. He believed that hatred was necessary if one wanted to be successful in a revolution. Hatred is an element of struggle, relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.

argh, I hate not being able to post on this thread sooner.....

MY def. of terrorism: any action that uses fear to gain obedience or further an ideal.

War IS Terrorism! The war in Iraq was clearly terroristic in nature. "Shock and Awe"? Clearly the use of excessive violence to instill fear and gain obedience. Is Terrorism wrong? YES! Is war any better? NO! The entire genre of acts that fall under "terrorism" is simply propaganda. If someone invaded your country (ie, set up a military base there and wouldnt allow any natives to enter within x feet of it on pain of death)how would you feel? What would you do about it if you had no ability to get a tank or an assault rifle? You would do what a terrorist would do, find an insane person (with no place or value in your society), sell him some lie on how he would be rewarded for his death, strap him with home-made bombs, and send him out to die.

The argument is NOT "is violence bad"? the argument is "is the traditional definition of war morally better than that of Terrorism?" My personal answer is that they are equal, and any argument to justify the morality of traditional warfare is based on nationalistic propaganda. Does Might = Right? The history of the world says yes, idealists say no. War AND Terrorism are the use of Might to arrange events to someone's point of view. therefore the justification of each must be based soley on the value of the plan of the group using said policies. Peace is only obdience to the authority over you. One must either accept that authority, or reject peace.

Oh, and where are the references to the fact that the US revolution was mainly carried out by fringe groups using hit and run tactics, camoflaged snipers, and other "non-traditional" acts of war? The Founding Fathers were no better than any other terrorists, except maybe in the argument that the ends justified the means.

At 6/23/03 11:58 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: argh, I hate not being able to post on this thread sooner.....

MY def. of terrorism: any action that uses fear to gain obedience or further an ideal.

War IS Terrorism! The war in Iraq was clearly terroristic in nature. "Shock and Awe"? Clearly the use of excessive violence to instill fear and gain obedience. Is Terrorism wrong? YES! Is war any better? NO! The entire genre of acts that fall under "terrorism" is simply propaganda. If someone invaded your country (ie, set up a military base there and wouldnt allow any natives to enter within x feet of it on pain of death)how would you feel? What would you do about it if you had no ability to get a tank or an assault rifle? You would do what a terrorist would do, find an insane person (with no place or value in your society), sell him some lie on how he would be rewarded for his death, strap him with home-made bombs, and send him out to die.

The argument is NOT "is violence bad"? the argument is "is the traditional definition of war morally better than that of Terrorism?" My personal answer is that they are equal, and any argument to justify the morality of traditional warfare is based on nationalistic propaganda. Does Might = Right? The history of the world says yes, idealists say no. War AND Terrorism are the use of Might to arrange events to someone's point of view. therefore the justification of each must be based soley on the value of the plan of the group using said policies. Peace is only obdience to the authority over you. One must either accept that authority, or reject peace.

In my eyes peace is not about conformity or accepting rules it is a state of being where everyone can agree with any violence or force being used.

Oh, and where are the references to the fact that the US revolution was mainly carried out by fringe groups using hit and run tactics, camoflaged snipers, and other "non-traditional" acts of war? The Founding Fathers were no better than any other terrorists, except maybe in the argument that the ends justified the means.

Some will label retaliation as terrorism. I feel that America labels any act against us as terrorism whether it have some form of justification or not. If we bomb a country we can't expect them not to strike back with violence. America acts like a superpower that uses the double standard method. The USA only sees what they please and ignores the facts if works against them..

At 6/23/03 09:13 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: Terrorism: premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an audience

I think the definition of terrorism should be broadened to include state terrorism.

excellent idea my friend. but, as long as the united states continues to define terms for geopolitics, i doubt that will happen... unless of course they define state terrorism to be anything slightly imperialistic that any state does with the exception of the united states. sorry im not posting too frequently.. but im living in the stanford dorms right now and im having trouble connecting my computer in my room to the internet, so im at the mercy of whenever the dorm computer cluster is free to use. california is sooo wonderful compared to back in philly where it rained every fucking day so far this summer. sorry to be off topic but i have no idea why i never came to cali before.

tschau.

At 6/22/03 06:17 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/22/03 04:14 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: I'm just wondering, but can anyone define terrorism as opposed to freeedom fighting?

Having read peoples answers, I still believe that the only difference is that Freedom Fighters are on your side. Muslim fundameltalists don't call Osama bin Laden a Terrorist do they?

At 6/24/03 01:10 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Having read peoples answers, I still believe that the only difference is that Freedom Fighters are on your side. Muslim fundameltalists don't call Osama bin Laden a Terrorist do they?

sadly, its all about the propaganda, bcc.

you are an ass-hole!!! i hope god or whoever you worship, gives you the worst ass cancer an angry god can bestow upon such a fuck like you.

At 6/24/03 12:46 PM, BootlegJones wrote: you are an ass-hole!!! i hope god or whoever you worship, gives you the worst ass cancer an angry god can bestow upon such a fuck like you.

I'd like to see some sources that back up that claim.

Anyways, did anyone read the letter that Osama Bin Laden sent to America? It shows you the other side of the story.

Yeah, I think we can all agree that a terrorist is merely a guerrila or freedom fighter that is ifghting for something that you're opposed to.

Now go see the other side of the story.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

At 6/23/03 11:58 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

MY def. of terrorism: any action that uses fear to gain obedience or further an ideal.

I can agree to that definition.

War IS Terrorism! The war in Iraq was clearly terroristic in nature. "Shock and Awe"? Clearly the use of excessive violence to instill fear and gain obedience. Is Terrorism wrong? YES! Is war any better? NO! The entire genre of acts that fall under "terrorism" is simply propaganda. If someone invaded your country (ie, set up a military base there and wouldnt allow any natives to enter within x feet of it on pain of death)how would you feel? What would you do about it if you had no ability to get a tank or an assault rifle? You would do what a terrorist would do, find an insane person (with no place or value in your society), sell him some lie on how he would be rewarded for his death, strap him with home-made bombs, and send him out to die.

I agree the war in Iraq was unjustified...but I don't know that I can call all war terroism, for me terroism is somebody who wants to instill fear, like you said, and to me, it dosen't gain you much when you sit there and lose people, I feel there is a fine line between war and terroism, terroism is actions by a small group who come in, harm innocent people or damage property, or both, and than run like hell damaging the way of life of the people. At least in a war, you have a situation where the winners usually stick around and pump a little money in to rebuild...terroists won't do that. I don't see the war in Iraq as terroistic, unjust yes, but terroistic, no.

The argument is NOT "is violence bad"? the argument is "is the traditional definition of war morally better than that of Terrorism?" My personal answer is that they are equal, and any argument to justify the morality of traditional warfare is based on nationalistic propaganda.

Here's a problem for me...because I feel like at least in my case I'm able to think these things threw for myself...I see a difference between war and terroism...since some war can be morally justifiable (our involvement in WW2 as it pertains to attacking Germany and stopping Adolf Hitler) but terroism will NEVER really have a moral justification for me by the very nature of it...I am not a "the ends justify the means" type of person.

Does Might = Right? The history of the world says yes, idealists say no. War AND Terrorism are the use of Might to arrange events to someone's point of view. therefore the justification of each must be based soley on the value of the plan of the group using said policies. Peace is only obdience to the authority over you. One must either accept that authority, or reject peace.

I dunno about that thing with piece...I mean, lets define "authority over you" do you mean the governmental structure? Or the person in charge of it? If we're talking about the PERSON, than I would say America peacefully deposes it's authority every 4-8 years when they vote in a new president, and every 6-whenever when they vote for their congress men and women. But of course, if you meant the government itself...than I guess you can just throw my arguement out the window on this point.

At 6/22/03 04:14 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: I'm just wondering, but can anyone define terrorism as opposed to freeedom fighting?

From a journalistic standpoint, there's this exceptionally complicated formula to help the discerning journo tell the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, just to keep the reporting PC. In the end, it equates that the IRA and ETA are terrorist groups, while the PLO are freedom fighters. I think it's because the IRA and ETA are simular in core beliefs and use of vowels that do it, though. Bloody Basque seperatists, making themselves a grey area...

sorry aviewaskew, but when I say authority, I do in fact mean the government. Mainly because without the rest of the organization, the president doesnt really have that much authority over anything, does he? This of course applies to all governments. Basically my logic is this. If someone tells you to do something/not do something, and they have the power (authority) to enforce that mandate, disobeying that mandate is begging for them to use that power to violently change your life. Thus disobeying authority will always be a rejection of peace.

At 6/24/03 12:46 PM, BootlegJones wrote: you are an ass-hole!!! i hope god or whoever you worship, gives you the worst ass cancer an angry god can bestow upon such a fuck like you.

to whom are you talking???

At 6/23/03 11:58 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

MY def. of terrorism: any action that uses fear to gain obedience or further an ideal.

WOAH, this cant be terrorism... the US would fall under that definition as a terrorist... and the mighty US CANT be a terrorist...

At 6/24/03 01:10 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Having read peoples answers, I still believe that the only difference is that Freedom Fighters are on your side. Muslim fundameltalists don't call Osama bin Laden a Terrorist do they?

actually osama has a mid 70% and up approval rating in palestine, syria and jordan... pakistan too i think...

and that fun loving group al-qaeda he's quite well liked...

[url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html]
CLICK HERE AND GET A COOKIE![/url]