Is it wrong to be a terrorist?

[segovius]

Listening to reports of the latest Israeli contravention of the Geneva Convention and reading the unthinking support for Israel voiced here by the usual suspects has got me thinking about the nature of terrorism, what it is and whether it is ever permissible.

Briefly my position is this: I respect the Israeli actions throughout the whole of the conflict (though I do not agree with them) and can clearly see why they act as they do. The people I cannot respect, and most despise, are the unthinking drones who unquestioningly swallow any propaganda thrown at them, no matter how lame, and who support things they are not involved in, have no stake in and know nothing about. They are just pawns and the propagandists - especially Israel - do not respect them either.

I think the Israelis do respect the Palestinian fighters (though not the people obviously) and I can well see the sense behind quotes such as these:

If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?

Ben Gurion. Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

I would have joined a terrorist organization.

Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If we know the family, we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.

Ben Gurion. January 1, 1948 diary entry.

Seems fair enough - it's just a question of who wins wins. there are no 'good guys' and no 'bad guys': that is just propaganda for the sheep and part of the strategies either side use to attempt to win.

I see no difference between these two positions other than one side has managed to fend off an aggressor against overwhelming odds for decades -a s well as the fact that the aggressor is exempt from laws in world opinion and has the unquestioned backing of the world's only superpower. Apart from that the underpinning strategies are the same. One side has primitive weapons to execute them with and every move they make is trumpeted worldwide as 'evil' while the other does the same and worse and it is called 'good'.

But the players of the game no what's what.

Terrorist is just a label - even Israel itself started off as terrorists. If I believed in the label as a pejorative I would say they still are. I don't have a problem with it - evil needs opposing.

Thoughts?

[Fellowship]

In my humble opinion it is wrong to be a terrorist.


What humanity needs to work on is the following:

Compassion, Respect and Understanding.


A lot of what is wrong with the world is the following mindset:

"(They) are messed up and (we) are right"

What we need to see is:

"we all have strengths and areas where improvement is needed"

How can we help others and ourselves?


These are my thoughts

Fellows

[Chucker]

Fighting for one's rights is a good thing. Unfortunately, it's hard to agree on the means terrorists use to accomplish their goals.

[hardeeharhar]

Yes. It is wrong to be a terrorist.

Have we forgotten that civil disobedience works and is an ethical high ground?

[Frank777]

I would echo Hardee's question. An Eye for an Eye only serves to leave everyone blind.

No piece of land is worth dying for.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Frank777
I would echo Hardee's question. An Eye for an Eye only serves to leave everyone blind.

No piece of land is worth dying for. [/B]

Now that's an anti-war statement if there ever was one.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Part of the problem is that insurgents are being labeled as terrorists for political purposes. I'd define an insurgent as someone fighting strictly against other military members with certain bounds on their actions. You may not be formal military and your actions may not necessarily be smart or just but you are targeting an opposing military force that is involved in a conflict in your nation.

A terrorist on the other hand does not restrict his activities to his country of residence or nationality. Or he does not take due diligence to safeguard civilians. Or he does not respect the rights of detained members of the opposition. Terrorism to my mind is immoral whereas insurgents are amoral assuming that you do not believe war to be always immoral which I don't.

The kidnapping of the Israeli soldier is a little bit in the gray area. If that had happened in the West Bank it would be an action of insurgency. Since they went into Israeli on an attack it becomes a bit murkier. The settler who was executed is an act of terrorism because by all accounts he was executed after capture. Palestinians who attack soldiers in West Bank territory are insurgents. Palestinians who blow themselves up in cafes and kill civilians are terrorists. Likewise for the two recent US soldiers who were taken hostage in killed. It would be a legitimate insurgent tactic for Iraqis to attack them and then hold them prisoner for the duration of the war. If done by extranationals though it becomes terrorism and in either case the killing of the soldiers once captured is terrorism. Likewise, if those US soldiers whacked that family at Haditha that makes them terrorists.

In practice we know that people don't always play by the rules and it gets murky. But I'm still willing to make this sort of qualification on fighting methods that are acceptable and those that are not. If you make this sort of distinction then you are recognizing that insurgents are the same as us, just on the other side which is what some of those Israelis were hinting at. Insurgents are neither good nor bad. THey are just your side or the other side. But you reserve the terrorists label for those who do not fight the right way, on either side, and those are the bad guys. The good guys? Well whomever can figure out a way to end the fighting, they get that title. And of course, with that title of peacemaker frequently there is an accompanying bullet.

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by Fellowship
What humanity needs to work on is the following:

Compassion, Respect and Understanding.


A lot of what is wrong with the world is the following mindset:

"(They) are messed up and (we) are right"


I think a lot of what is wrong in the world is the mindset of people who somehow expect the world to be a utopia. It is not that simple and never will be. Wishing for everyone to inherit compassion, respect and understanding won't make it happen. And leaving people to their own devices in hopes that they achieve this understanding on there own is neglectful. Because by the time anyone notices what is really going on, you end up with a situation like in Darfur, for example. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, and unfortunately given humanistic nature, we will never achieve it.

[Harald]

No, it is not wrong, sometimes, to be someone's terrorist.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist to the fascist Apartheid government.

To the majority of his nation, and to me, he was fighting for the freedom of Black men and women in South Africa.

Sometimes you have to fight.

[sammi jo]

Should the unlikely occurrence of a foreign power invading and taking control of the US happen, those who resisted the occupation would undoubtedly be labeled as 'terrorists' by the occupying power, whereas (most) Americans would naturally see them as 'freedom fighters'.

In the event of this (unlikely) scenario, I imagine that some of us here would stand up and resist the occupying power; would it be realistic to label our own insurgents as 'terrorists'?

[hardeeharhar]

There is a difference between a Civil War, like what we have in Sudan, attacks on an external occupying power in your home country, like what we have in Iraq, and terrorism, like what happened in Bali.

All three of these situations have commonalities -- civilian deaths in terrorism and civil war, military movements in civil war and occupation, etc etc... But none of them are the same.

[Powerdoc]

By definition a terrorist is someone creating terror to other people (read common citizens) by doing atrocities.

In my book it will always wrong.

[Chucker]

Trouble is, labelling someone a terrorist is a matter of perspective. A terrorist would never view themselves as such.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chucker
Trouble is, labelling someone a terrorist is a matter of perspective. A terrorist would never view themselves as such.

I don't think that is necessarily true... see all terror groups that claim responsibility for attacks...

[Chucker]

Claim responsibility, sure. Be proud of their "accomplishments", yes, maybe. But they (well, the "intelligent ones" among them) surely feel that they're doing what is right.

[FormerLurker]

Indeed - how to define depends on who does the defining.

One man's Terrorist is anoter man's Insurgent and still another man's Freedom Fighter.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
One man's Terrorist is anoter man's Insurgent and still another man's Freedom Fighter.

Exactly! If it had been a common word at the time, I'm sure Louis XVI (no, not XIV) would have considered the revolutionaries of 1789 "terrorists". And they, too, were quite violent —_burning buildings down, publicly executing their emperor, etc. Yet everyone today would agree that their cause was righteous.

[hardeeharhar]

You are playing the semantics game the modern press has created.

But terrorist actually means something different than insurgent:

terrorist: an individual who makes unlawful or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

insurgent: an individual who rises in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

Not all insurgents are terrorists and not all terrorists are insurgents.

[FormerLurker]

Were the Muslims fighting the Soviet Union occupiers in Afganistan insurgents, freedom fighters, or terrorists?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Were the Muslims fighting the Soviet Union occupiers in Afganistan insurgents, freedom fighters, or terrorists?

Far closer to freedom fighters/insurgents than terrorists.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
[terrorist: an individual who makes unlawful or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Would you still be happy with that definition, knowing that such tactics have been used in foreign nations by individuals and personnel within various agencies working for the US government over many decades, and for numerous administrations? Iran (1953), Panama, Grenada, Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Colombia, ... the list goes on, and on, and on....

:(

[Chucker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
terrorist: an individual who makes unlawful or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

insurgent: an individual who rises in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

Not all insurgents are terrorists and not all terrorists are insurgents.

That very definition you cite seems to state that terrorists (almost) invariably are insurgents.

[benzene]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
By definition a terrorist is someone creating terror to other people (read common citizens) by doing atrocities.

I think this is the best definition yet. The term "terrorist" has been used so much by this current administration (and anybody else with an agenda), that anyone doing anything contrary to current policy is labeled.

The boston tea party participants would probably be called terrorists in today's day and age, but I wouldn't call dumping tea an "atrocity". Flying an airplane full of citizens into a building full of citizens is, as well as shooting at soldiers and then hiding behind women and children.

One of my coworkers is an avowed pacifist, and claims that "well, terrorists only target civilians, because it'd be suicide to go up against armed soldiers".
I call that cowardice, and the marine barracks bombing in Beruit shows that military personnel can be effectively targeted. Although that was an atrocity, it was done to cripple an enemy's war ability, and therefore not terrorism.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Would you still be happy with that definition, knowing that such tactics have been used in foreign nations by individuals and personnel within various agencies working for the US government over many decades, and for numerous administrations? Iran (1953), Panama, Grenada, Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Colombia, ... the list goes on, and on, and on....

:(

Um... Yes.

[segovius]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
terrorist: an individual who makes unlawful or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


That was my initial point. This definition on the state level (and states are often referred to as 'terrorist' - is this possible?) is in fact a description of Israel's actions yet Israel is not accepted as a 'terrorist state' - although I would argue it is - and many people regard it as being 'in the right'.

[occam whisker]

Terrorists are none uniformed combatants, that often direct their war like actions against non military targets.

[occam whisker]

Is it wrong to be a terrorist?


There\'s nothing wrong in being a terrorist. As long as it\'s understood that two can play at that game. The question then becomes, do you really want to play war by these rules.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Terrorists are none uniformed combatants, that often direct their war like actions against non military targets.

Khmer Rouge, IRA, LRA, Ta,il Tigers - all not terrorists then.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Khmer Rouge, IRA, LRA, Ta,il Tigers - all not terrorists then.


I don\'t know enough about these other organizations to give you an answer. I do know that IRA members, when performing their bombing operations, do not wear a uniform.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I don\'t know enough about these other organizations to give you an answer. I do know that IRA members, when performing their bombing operations, do not wear a uniform.

They do have a uniform and are/were an armed militia verging on an organised military cadre. They do not wear their uniforms when conducting operations under the nose of the occupying forces for obvious reasons.

Perhaps then, according to you, terrorists are not terrorists when on a parade or wearing uniforms - on certain occasions the IRA or Hamas for example would cease to be terrorists for the length of time they were parading in their regalia.

Similarly, suicide bombers from organisations such as the al-aqsa martyrs brigade would not be terrorists either as they are clearly wearing a uniform in every video that is released after each successful martyrdom operation.

Ditto Sadiq Khan in London bombing video and I believe, Mr bin Laden on occasion has desported himself in a uniform of sorts. Certainly he often wears camo.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
They do have a uniform and are/were an armed militia verging on an organised military cadre. They do not wear their uniforms when conducting operations under the nose of the occupying forces for obvious reasons.

Perhaps then, according to you, terrorists are not terrorists when on a parade or wearing uniforms - on certain occasions the IRA or Hamas for example would cease to be terrorists for the length of time they were parading in their regalia.

Similarly, suicide bombers from organisations such as the al-aqsa martyrs brigade would not be terrorists either as they are clearly wearing a uniform in every video that is released after each successful martyrdom operation.

Ditto Sadiq Khan in London bombing video and I believe, Mr bin Laden on occasion has desported himself in a uniform of sorts. Certainly he often wears camo.



Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

If you do not wear a uniform when conducting war like operations particularly as it involves non military targets then under my definition you are a terrorist.

And just because someone parades in a uniform does not automatically make that someone a soldier.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

If you do not wear a uniform when conducting war like operations particularly as it involves non military targets then under my definition you are a terrorist.

And just because someone parades in a uniform does not automatically make that someone a soldier.

So the SAS and Navy Seals would be terrorists then when undercover?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
So the SAS and Navy Seals would be terrorists then when undercover?

No. Even \"undercover\" Navy Seals (and SAS I guess) would still wear a uniform, and an identifying \'dog tag\'. They thus retain their soldier status, being agents of the state.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
No. Even \"undercover\" Navy Seals (and SAS I guess) would still wear a uniform, and an identifying \'dog tag\'. They thus retain their soldier status, being agents of the state.

What about when they have infiltrated groups like al-Q? They can't wear dog-tags then.

Does that mean they are terrorists for the duration of the operation till they put the dog-tags back on?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
What about when they have infiltrated groups like al-Q? They can\'t wear dog-tags then.

Does that mean they are terrorists for the duration of the operation till they put the dog-tags back on?


LOL. A double agent is by definition a double agent.

[digitalclips]

Freedom fighters don't have to target women and children. They could attack soldiers, bridges, infrastructure etc. The line is crossed in my humble opinion when a freedom fighter commits atrocities.

I don't know for sure but did the European freedom fighters during WWII in Europe round up and torture innocent German civilians. Sure there was horrible collateral damage from bombing (no smart bombs then) but were German journalists beheaded etc.?

So I agree with much that is said here about one man's freedom fighter is another man's insurgent but the term terrorist seems correctly applied only to those who cross the line.

[occam whisker]

It seems the name of game is violence as an extension of diplomacy.

In my humble opinion, the British Army should have leveled IRA strongholds until every last member of the IRA was given up to them by the very people the IRA claimed to protect.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by benzene


One of my coworkers is an avowed pacifist, and claims that "well, terrorists only target civilians, because it'd be suicide to go up against armed soldiers".
I call that cowardice, and the marine barracks bombing in Beruit shows that military personnel can be effectively targeted. Although that was an atrocity, it was done to cripple an enemy's war ability, and therefore not terrorism.

Well, before the suicide bombers, terrorists could be labelled as coward people, not able to risk their life in order to achieve their goals.
BTW, with today terrorism it's more difficult to definite them with the notion of cowardice.
The only thing who remind the same, is to create terror mostly among civilians, by random actions, in order to let feel people insecure.

[digitalclips]

I am very anti terrorism but I can understand freedom fighters and I really think there is a huge difference. I write this really to try to think this through in my own mind.

As folk have written earlier in the blog, if the US were taken over by a foreign force (as much of Europe was in the early 1940's) who among us would not strike at an army post of those invaders given the chance? However, I doubt many of us would want to torture their wives and children. A terrorist as we now define them would if they thought it aided their cause - or far worse, if they thought their God wanted them to!

So the argument that a freedom fighter is a different animal from a terrorist seems a fair one to me.

When it is our boys in a foreign land whose base is attacked by a native of that land (or even a supporter of that land) it becomes a very difficult concept to accept the attacker as anything but a terrorist or 'evil doer' (as some might say) I admit.

The truth, in my opinion, is easier to see if you reverse the position as ask what you would do (if opportunity presented itself) to a German barracks stationed in NY in 1946 had history turned out differently.

The wives of the dead Germans at that barracks reading the paper in Berlin the next day would read, 'American ------ killed 20 sleeping soldiers' (fill in your own word) and it would not say US patriots or freedom fighters.

My point being; resistance is both to be expected and should be seen for what it is whereas terrorism is not. Hence the Geneva Conventions. Having rules about war seems ludicrous at one level ('why not nuke them all?' argument fits in here) but without them we may as well all become terrorist states. The USA could sure create mayhem in the World for example if we simply ahnialted whole cities as reprisals for a dead journalist - and we could!

Scary thing is some powerful States in this World are moving in that direction.

I am not sure I know what the hell I am talking about either ...

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
[B]It seems the name of game is violence as an extension of diplomacy.

In my humble opinion, the British Army should have leveled IRA strongholds until every last member of the IRA was given up to them by the very people the IRA claimed to protect.

One would hope also, (to avoid the duplicity that seems to be the common cause/aggravating/propagating agent re. unrest and terrorism) that the soldiers of the British Army leveled all the strongholds of the opposing Protestant terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland until every last member of those groups (UVF, SLPV, UDA, LVF. etc) was given up by the very people they claimed to protect.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
One would hope also, (to avoid the duplicity that seems to be the common cause/aggravating/propagating agent re. unrest and terrorism) that the soldiers of the British Army leveled all the strongholds of the opposing Protestant terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland until every last member of those groups (UVF, SLPV, UDA, LVF. etc) was given up by the very people they claimed to protect.


Why would they want to do that? Were the Protestants attacking British citizenry?

[hardeeharhar]

No but protestant terror groups were not helping the situation...

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No but protestant terror groups were not helping the situation...


You have a problem with reciprocity? If so, too bad.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You have a problem with reciprocity? If so, too bad.

Is our goal peace, or fixing the past?

[Chucker]

You can't fix the past, nor can you achieve world peace. It wouldn't be a desirable goal either. Imagine a romantic relationship where you never argue with your significant other. Sounds great, doesn't it? Until you realize that they only reason you don't argue is that the whole thing is shallow, superficial, pointless. World peace would be just the same: because "the world" in this context refers, collectively, to all humans living on this planets, and their associated cultures, nations, religions, etc., the same behaviour applies. World peace would consist of suppression. It could only work if politicians and diplomats never discussed truly relevant (and often controversial and possibly hurtful-to-some) subjects. You gotta make compromises every now and then if you really want to move forward. And those compromises anger, hurt or even kill millions of people.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why would they want to do that? Were the Protestants attacking British citizenry?

Well, they were attacking Catholic citizens of Northern Ireland. If you feel that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom, then , yes, British citizens were being attacked by "protestant" allied terrorist groups.

Are you suggesting that the British Army should side with one particular religious sect? The British Government told the (UK) people that the army was sent in to "keep the peace". That should mean just that, as opposed to acting duplicitiously.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chucker
You can't fix the past, nor can you achieve world peace. It wouldn't be a desirable goal either. Imagine a romantic relationship where you never argue with your significant other. Sounds great, doesn't it? Until you realize that they only reason you don't argue is that the whole thing is shallow, superficial, pointless. World peace would be just the same: because "the world" in this context refers, collectively, to all humans living on this planets, and their associated cultures, nations, religions, etc., the same behaviour applies. World peace would consist of suppression. It could only work if politicians and diplomats never discussed truly relevant (and often controversial and possibly hurtful-to-some) subjects. You gotta make compromises every now and then if you really want to move forward. And those compromises anger, hurt or even kill millions of people.

It is a realistic goal to limit violence to crimes of passion. There is no reason to solve problems with violence. Arguing in one thing, taking up arms is another.

[digitalclips]

Originally posted by Chucker
You gotta make compromises every now and then if you really want to move forward. And those compromises anger, hurt or even kill millions of people.

Say again? I assume this was a typo?

[Chucker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It is a realistic goal to limit violence to crimes of passion. There is no reason to solve problems with violence. Arguing in one thing, taking up arms is another.

Of course, being a pacifist, I fully agree with that.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, they were attacking Catholic citizens of Northern Ireland. If you feel that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom, then , yes, British citizens were being attacked by \"protestant\" allied terrorist groups.

Are you suggesting that the British Army should side with one particular religious sect? The British Government told the (UK) people that the army was sent in to \\\"keep the peace\\\". That should mean just that, as opposed to acting duplicitiously.


How many times a day do you hit your head against the floor? Really, I\\\'m curious to know.

[Chucker]

Not as often as your browser inserts random backslashes.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There is no reason to solve problems with violence.


Since everything terrorists do is correctly reported as a success, I think it\'s only fair to allow everyone enjoy that success.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Chucker
Not as often as your browser inserts random backslashes.

I wouldn\'t be so sure.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Since everything terrorists do is correctly reported as a success, I think it\'s only fair to allow everyone enjoy that success.

All terror acts are unequivocal successes.

Hmm, perhaps what we should be doing is ignoring the acts, as that is the only approach we haven't tried.

[Chucker]

Only successful terrorist actions are usually reported on. Due to the secret way in which terrorist cells work, cancelled actions's plans are hardly ever revealed, and failed actions usually simply aren't considered relevant enough for the media.

However, a successful terrorist action does not equal a successful terrorist goal.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by occam whisker
How many times a day do you hit your head against the floor? Really, I\\\'m curious to know.

Can you repeat the response in a less cryptic fashion? I was trying to answer straightforwardly.

[DaveGee]

x

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
All terror acts are unequivocal successes.




Exactly!

They kill children, they win; they try to kill children and fail, they win; they kill themselves, they win. They win big, when we kill them. It is an even greater success for them when they surrender. They go on trial, they win. They don\'t go on trial, they win. They tell the truth, they win. They lie, they win. Nothing succeeds like success for terrorists, even failure. The important thing to remember is: they always win.

So why would anyone in their right mind want to be anything but a terrorist?

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
So why would anyone in their right mind want to be anything but a terrorist?

Obviously the conclusion the US and Israel have come to - difference is I suppose is that they don't have any balls so they're afraid to admit it.

But really - there is no such thing as a terrorist. Most sane people know this - it's just a label used to scare the sheep. But it's only real use is to identify the morons who buy into the rhetoric which may come in handy of things disintegrate further.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Obviously the conclusion the US and Israel have come to - difference is I suppose is that they don\'t have any balls so they\'re afraid to admit it.

But really - there is no such thing as a terrorist. Most sane people know this - it\'s just a label used to scare the sheep. But it\'s only real use is to identify the morons who buy into the rhetoric which may come in handy of things disintegrate further.


Something I think we need to remember is that all the terror groups to come out of the ME have ties to the Secret Services of their client States. This model of \"privateering\" warfare will soon be replicated in Western countries.

[hardeeharhar]

You really have no faith in people do you?

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Something I think we need to remember is that all the terror groups to come out of the ME have ties to the Secret Services of their client States.

Ie: largely the US and Israel.

It is well known that Israel was instrumental in the creation of Hamas and the links between al-Qaeda and the US during their formative period in Afghanistan are similarly common knowledge (for those capable of basic research and subsequent rational thought).

Even today the US continues to run the Iranian terrorist group the MEK and within Iraq there was the incident last year where British undercover operatives - in full 'terrorist' mode as they were out of uniform - from the SAS were caught by Iraqi security services dressed as Arabs and in the process of parking a car loaded full of explosives in a civilian area.

Clearly, had this murderous attempt at a black-op not been thwarted then it would be more evidence for the sheep and assorted wing-nuts to use to back up their 'expert opinions'. Thankfully this attempt at mass slaughter was prevented but unfortunately mass killings continue there and we have no way of knowing the exact degree of involvement of the occupying forces.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Ie: largely the US and Israel.

It is well known that Israel was instrumental in the creation of Hamas and the links between al-Qaeda and the US during their formative period in Afghanistan are similarly common knowledge (for those capable of basic research and subsequent rational thought).

Even today the US continues to run the Iranian terrorist group the MEK and within Iraq there was the incident last year where British undercover operatives - in full \'terrorist\' mode as they were out of uniform - from the SAS were caught by Iraqi security services dressed as Arabs and in the process of parking a car loaded full of explosives in a civilian area.

Clearly, had this murderous attempt at a black-op not been thwarted then it would be more evidence for the sheep and assorted wing-nuts to use to back up their \'expert opinions\'. Thankfully this attempt at mass slaughter was prevented but unfortunately mass killings continue there and we have no way of knowing the exact degree of involvement of the occupying forces.


That is why, Hamas take their orders from Syria, Fatah from Egypt, Hisbollah from Iran, al-Qaeda from Pakistan.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You really have no faith in people do you?

Why would I need faith when you\'ve been acting perfectly to script?

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
That is why, Hamas take their orders from Syria, Fatah from Egypt, Hisbollah from Iran, al-Qaeda from Pakistan.

Firstly: you don't know that - you can only regurgitate what your puppet-masters and chosen brainwashing medium of choice tells you. In a way this is fair enough as you clearly lack the fundamental tools to logically appraise the situation.

Secondly: some of that is true (and some is laughably nonsensical) - though again, not because you say so as you don't know what you're talking about or which bits are true or false - but that is irrelevant.

The point is not where the orders come from ostensibly but where the orders come from covertly and who benefits by the result.

For example: when the MEK plan to murder a few civilians in Iran, they don't get on the phone to Georgie boy in Washington for the OK. The orders come through channels that in any terrorist cell are secret for the purposes of security. How many levels the orders pass through, who the operatives are in the chain, geographical locations, personal identities and origins of command - all these are unknown.

Still, if the MEK succeeds in bring down the Iranian government then the US won;t be too unhappy and if you think they are not contributing on the level of funds, intel and weapons then you are more ign......err.....never mind......

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why would I need faith when you\'ve been acting perfectly to script?

Those who have no reason always need faith.

It is a poor replacement for logic but in cases of extreme derangement it can be the best of a bad job. Kind of like a lobotomy - not so good generally but in some cases an improvement.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Firstly: you don\'t know that - you can only regurgitate what your puppet-masters and chosen brainwashing medium of choice tells you. In a way this is fair enough as you clearly lack the fundamental tools to logically appraise the situation.


Wiki: Psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defence mechanism in which one attributes (\"projects\") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Wiki: Psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defence mechanism in which one attributes (\"projects\") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.

I'll see your Freud and raise you Jaques Lacan (http://www.nosubject.com/Castration_Complex):

Lacan follows Freud in stating that castration is first and foremost a fantasy of the mutilation of the penis.

Lacan links this fantasy with a whole series of fantasies of bodily dismemberment which originate in the image of the fragmented body; this image is contemporary with the mirror stage (six to eighteen months), and it is only much later that these fantasies of dismemberment coalesce around the specific fantasy of castration.[4]

Lacan divides the Oedipus complex into three 'times'.

In the first time, the child perceives that the mother desires something beyond the child himself - namely, the imaginary phallus - and then tries to be the phallus for the mother (see preoedipal phase).

In the second time, the imaginary father intervenes to deprive the mother of her object by promulgating the incest taboo; properly speaking, this is not castration but privation.

Castration is only realised in the third and final time, which represents the 'dissolution' of the Oedipus complex.
It is then that the real father intervenes by showing that he really posesses the phallus, in such a way that the child is forced to abandon his attempts to be the phallus.

Clearly your attempts to be a phallus have met with resounding success and you have now moved onto the final stage - the actualization of the dismemberment fantasy.

Although naturally this is displaced into a conception of 'the other' (ie - them over there in Iraq or wherever 'ragheads' (note the menstrual motif in the 'rag' replacing common metaphors for the male member - see Popper and Ivanov 1993 Big Choppers: Military obsession in Infantile Dysfucntion - populate in your subconscious imagination) and thus the 'dismembering' is something that must be visited on 'someone else' in order to retain your grip on 'being the phallus' - which is of course yourself and as such cannot be dismembered if some semblance of psychological cohesion is to be maintained and compete neural shutdown is to be avoided.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
I\'ll see your Freud and raise you Jaques Lacan (http://www.nosubject.com/Castration_Complex):



Clearly your attempts to be a phallus have met with resounding success and you have now moved onto the final stage - the actualization of the dismemberment fantasy.

Although naturally this is displaced into a conception of \'the other\' (ie - them over there in Iraq or wherever \'ragheads\' (note the menstrual motif in the \'rag\' replacing common metaphors for the male member - see Popper and Ivanov 1993 Big Choppers: Military obsession in Infantile Dysfucntion - populate in your subconscious imagination) and thus the \'dismembering\' is something that must be visited on \'someone else\' in order to retain your grip on \'being the phallus\' - which is of course yourself and as such cannot be dismembered if some semblance of psychological cohesion is to be maintained and compete neural shutdown is to be avoided.

I\'m not going to trade barbs with you. Clearly this a time for a Mod to step in.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I\'m not going to trade barbs with you. Clearly this a time for a Mod to step in.

Sense of humour is a wonderful thing - they probably won't be able to help you on that score but PM one anyway.

:D

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Sense of humour is a wonderful thing - they probably won\\\'t be able to help you on that score but PM one anyway.

:D

I accept your attempt at jest. In the future, should I refer to you as “Jester, The Court Clown”?

:)

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I accept your attempt at jest. In the future, should I refer to you as “Jester, The Court Clown”?

:)

How very dare you - this is out of order now........

I'm calling the MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You have a problem with reciprocity? If so, too bad.

How ironic,

Just heard a message this Sunday at the Church I have been attending about reciprocity.

Listen to the link, the subject of reciprocity is the subject at hand and the word "reciprocity" is mentioned within seconds of clicking the link streamed in Quicktime.

Take a Listen:



Click HERE TO LISTEN TO THE MESSAGE BY BILL RAMSEY (http://www.metchurch.com/media/archives/20060702.html)


Fellows