Ultraviolet on 31/5/2006 at 06:14
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
terrorists attack the masses because the elites are invulnerable
If they found ways to get at the elites, what do you think they do? Do you think that maybe they attack people like us so that we will in turn change our supportive stances on our current elites?
Quote:
if his ambitions were to stir up military conflict in the Middle East, then the resulting War on Terror goes along with his agenda.
You have to wonder, since now the religious balance in Iraq has changed so that the hardcore fundamentalists are the rebels -- is that what he wanted? Fundamentalist activists in a nation that borders Iran, another fundamentalist nation? A more volatile situation that would be more likely to get more fundamentalists turned to violent activism? I'm sure he didn't want it to require a lot of people dying, but if he's an "ends justify the means" type of guy, then this war on terror could very well be something he wants to happen. (Whereas if he's a sociopath, the means don't have to be justified, and the ends are all he's interested in.)
So. What about the idea that the war on terror is good for the global elites and terrorists alike? At the very least, defense contractors (those that stay Stateside) are prospering like fuck. And, since the elites are invulnerable, any revenue generated can only benefit them, right?
Goblin on 31/5/2006 at 10:22
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
So what do you call it when a government, or goverment agency/agents, commit actions that, if committed by civilians, would be called terrorism? Is that war crimes? What if there is no war on? Then what is it called?
Yeah, it gets messy there. And to muddy the issue further, what about a terrorist organisation (according to Monkysee's/the technical definition) who
becomes a government, and continues such acts. HaMaS would still fit any rational definition of a terrorist group, but as of this year it is the ruling party of a nation.
Rogue Keeper on 31/5/2006 at 11:41
Hmm... thinking about the definition of the term further, what about rogue governmential armed forces, deliberately targetting civilians? :erm:
Or : Secret governmential task forces, targetting civilians?
Convict on 31/5/2006 at 14:14
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Non-governmental combatents that target civilians to further political or ideological goals
Was the pentagon attack terrorism?
dracflamloc on 31/5/2006 at 14:25
What about for personal goals as well?
I seem to remember classic definitions of terrorists was things like taking hostages on a bus for money.
Agent Monkeysee on 31/5/2006 at 15:29
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
So what do you call it when a government, or goverment agency/agents, commit actions that, if committed by civilians, would be called terrorism? Is that war crimes? What if there is no war on? Then what is it called?
Note that I'm not trying to be challenging your definition, just trying to figure this out - one of the big questions is whether you count governments as terrorists.
It depends on what they're doing and who they're directing it at. Could be repression, an act of war, genocide, whatever. We have plenty of perfectly good terms for various acts of belligerent government. There's no need to extend terrorism to cover those acts. Terrorism has always meant non-governmental bodies until someone got the bright idea to score rhetorical brownie points by equating the vilified government action du joir "terrorism".
Don't let the rhetoricians win.
Agent Monkeysee on 31/5/2006 at 15:31
Quote Posted by Convict
Was the pentagon attack terrorism?
Yes because the Pentagon isn't strictly a military asset. It's kind of a weird gray area because of its proximity to the rest of the civilian executive branch.
But even if you don't buy that the hijackers used a commercial passenger jet full of civilians as a guided missile, which alone would qualify it as terrorism regardless of the target.
Hier on 31/5/2006 at 15:50
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Terrorism has always meant non-governmental bodies until someone got the bright idea to score rhetorical brownie points by equating the vilified government action du joir "terrorism".
Don't let the rhetoricians win.
Well said.
Aerothorn on 31/5/2006 at 22:37
Ooo, monkeysee makes a good arguement. Need to ponder this more now. Damn you and your silver...er....fingers.
Fringe on 31/5/2006 at 22:50
So the Pentagon was, but what does that definition make of the USS Cole incident?
