user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
it's a weapon, that both side uses when they see fit.
US still manufactures land mines, and about the only country that will not sign a ban against it, and is responsible for countless civilians maimed and killed.
Arab religious fanatics use the same exact methods thinking that somehow their fanatic devotion to thier religion will help them win over the more technologically advance foe.
both are living in the dream world, but they are real quick to point out how wrong the other side is.
by LCD on Thu Mar 01, 07 2:22pm
[+]
First we don't know that if these accusations are true or not so it's not fair to assume that western powers were behind this.It could very well be that some Iranian youths who are tried of being harassed by the religious government and have decided to revolt.Second I think it is necessary to disguish between an act of war and terrorism,attacking soldiers is an act of war not terrorism.
Its hard to say if its true at this point. I'll wait for more info. I wouldn't say it is the chosen weapon. Usually they try a coup or invasion first.
do you mean terrorism, or guerilla warfare? true terrorism is about using fear itself as a weapon. it doesn't even require killing, simply a strategically placed news story, or a few choice words.
^So verbally threating a person in order to instill fear in them and achieve political goals would be terrorism?
Oh come on Corrupt, how fucking niave are you? And I don't care if it's a soldier or a religious fanatic, sneaking around and setting off car bombs is terrorism. No distinction needs to be clearer. We are not at war with Iran and the US Government has not secured authority from congress to engage in such acts.
The CIA infamously recruits anti goverbnebt groups to fight cdvert wars, so why do so many people on this site deny it?
so verbally threating a person in order to instill fear in them and achieve political goals would be terrorism?
Yes, that counts.
Oops, I need to learn the keyboarg. That's *government*
And why didn't anyone vote?
"^So verbally threating a person in order to instill fear in them and achieve political goals would be terrorism?"
not very subtle, or effective, but yes. the best way to do it though is to make it seem like someone ELSE is making the threats, and portray yourself as the protector or savior.
Gets you the girl everytime huh neo?
Or, the country the right to wage a war
Voted : Chosen Weapon
And you know it!
Voted : Comment
It's not terrorism if you don't call it terrorism.
Though some might argue that Western governments don't participate in "terrorism" because they don't deliberately target civilians, where exactly does that leave Western governments who bomb 'the enemy' with the express knowledge that there will be civilian casualties?
Good question.
like i said, terrorism is about fear. it has nothing to do with killing civilians. the attack on the world trade centre and pentagon were not acts of terrorism, fear was not their purpose, their purpose was to kill as many people as possible. it was the american government who used it for fear purposes.
I disagree about the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and (presumably) the White House not constituting terrorism. Those who perpetrated these kinds of attacks are acutely aware of the symbolism involved. Aside from literally being centers of the following, they are symbols of American government, military, and international influence -- all three of which Osama Bin Laden publicly expressed grievances against. The attacks weren't just about killing as many people as possible or instilling fear; they were also a way of garnering more attention than anyone could have hoped for through peaceful means. One way of doing this is to kill people in as dramatic a fashion as possible. And it's hard to imagine anything more dramatic than crashing two jet airplanes crashing into what were the tallest buildings in the world, captured on video from a multitude of angles for everyone to see. Another is to kill as many people as possible, though if that were the real goal any number of other targets for the other 2 planes could have been selected which would have killed many, many more people. Plus Al Qaeda really blew it in terms of only killing 3,000 people at the World Trade center, when at peak periods there would've been more than 100,000 in the complex (minus whatever percentage escaped before the towers collapsed.)
The symbolism was of course lost on the people here, who focused on the events themselves and not on what they were supposed to represent. The fear that America is not only invulnerable, but is vulnerable to attacks that could take place anywhere, anytime, or anyhow on our own soil -- was and remains palpable.
I agree 100% that the Bush administration seized this fear to fulfill it's ridiculously ironic goal of consolidating American power and influence around the world. Legitimate authority figures have the greatest influence on the populace when they ostensibly are acting in the interest of security at a time when that security is perceived to be in great jeopardy.
all of that worked against al-quaeda's alleged cause, leading to millions of civilian deaths in the middle east. the only benefit to them was how many supporters they gained from the americans' response. it was an all around brainless move on their part, or would be if the wellbeing of muslims was their concern. i think the symbolism would be lost on them.
|
|
