Who are the real terrorists?

[grannywils]

The US government has allied with terrorists before...

 

The muslim brotherhood has not committed any acts of violence, if a part of the group wants to be violent then that group will split off into another group separate from the muslim brotherhood.

 

The muslim brotherhood spreads Islam peacefully, I have never seen them commit acts of violence without disbanding into another group due to violence.

 

:wallbash: Oh for goodness sake, don't tell me you have already forgotten;-

 

General Strategic Goal of The Muslim Brotherhood (see page 21)

 

They support overthrowing the kuffar by any means possible and they like to kid the naive into believing that certain terrorist groups are nothing to do with them. It is a rather familiar tale where I come from.

Pulls out bottle of aspirin and passes it over to Ginny :wallbash:

 

 

 

Hey you guys, would you mind sharing the aspirin? We get headaches too :wallbash: :laugh:

[HappyHerring]

Is an organisation or state which uses either the threat or actual violence against citizens who do not comply with the will of the organisation a terrorist organisation?

If so then we must add such nations as the U.S. which reserve the right to kill those who do not follow, be they murderers or whatever the rules of which legislators frame to pacify the whims of a public to the list of similar terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea. I find the idea amusing, what do you think? :huh:

[Aurielius]

Is an organisation or state which uses either the threat or actual violence against citizens who do not comply with the will of the organisation a terrorist organisation?

If so then we must add such nations as the U.S. which reserve the right to kill those who do not follow, be they murderers or whatever the rules of which legislators frame to pacify the whims of a public to the list of similar terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea. I find the idea amusing, what do you think? :huh:

@Happypig

Droll interpolation of the concept but I think that comparing warring nation states to terrorists is a tad far fetched. Where as some one who constructs a bomb such as the railway attack of 2005 (Aldgate) and murders commuters might fit slightly more aptly.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Aurielius

[SpellAndShield]

Stardusk, although my politics are generally more in line with yours than with those of Ginnyfizz and Aurielius, I must agree with both of them at least partially on this issue.

 

Although I sympathize somewhat with what I believe you are getting at with what you say about it being "none of our business". I cannot agree in toto. What Ginnyfizz says is true with respect to organizational and governmental treatment of women and with the general populice by theocracies. I agree that we do not need to go rushing in everywhere around the world to rescue everyone from everything; but we do need to be mindful of what is going on. What is happening right now is not a good thing for the people over there or for the world at large, including the USA, the UK or anyone else.

 

We have unfortunately reached a point where we cannot be isolationist. Our own behavior both good and bad has resulted in a need for us to "have a presence", whether physical or diplomatic remains to be seen, in almost any hotspot that exists. Unfortunately those choosing the hotspots have often been guilty, in my opinion, of wrong thinking in their choices. However, that is neither here nor there at this point. This particular hotspot is coming to a rapid boil.

 

I say what I say more from a humanistic rather than a militeristic or economic viewpoint. However, the other viewpoints must be considered as well, and I am no neophyte, and I do recognize this. I believe that both Ginny and A, are taking stances that at least need to be considered.

 

Trust me when I say that as a diehard Liberal thinking person, it hurts me to the heart to even say that, but I am nothing if not honest, and could say lots of other things about why I belive we are at this point, but it is not necessary here and now. Anyway, those of you who know me already know what I am thinking. Some of you have already claimed you can read my mind. LOL.

 

Anyway, that's all I have for now.

 

The isolationist canard, eh? I advocate non-interventionism; that does not mean cutting yourself off from the rest of the world; there is always a place for diplomacy. I suppose by this defnition, Norway and Iceland are isolationist? Just as an example....I think you are missing the point. It is coming to a boil in part because of our unilateral support for dictatorships over decades. And now it seems, once again, the solution is to forever stay involved in their affairs. How would you feel if there were a civil war in the US and some foreign power jumped in and installed a dictator that you neither supported, nor liked, nor elected. It seems to me that there is a massive patch of oil on fire and the proposed solutions are to pour more oil onto the patch until we reach inferno level.

 

There is another point and I think even pragmatic (I don't know what else to call him) Aurelius must agree on. Yes, women and minority groups do not fair well under Islam but we have already engaged in crusades to no avail. Western democratic thought is the synthesis of centuries upon centuries of developments (political, social, religious) and bloodshed. It took more than 2000 years. We cannot expect the Middle East to follow suit that quickly. They must engage in their own struggles and people will most certainly suffer for it but it is a social and historical necessity. Telling people how to live has never worked and does not work now either. We have so many problems in our own respective countries, so sure, we can keep a watchful eye but that should be about it. I do not see how constantly repeating the same failed, interventionist foreign policy helps anything...except helping us in more failures.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Libertarian Minority

[SpellAndShield]

Is an organisation or state which uses either the threat or actual violence against citizens who do not comply with the will of the organisation a terrorist organisation?

If so then we must add such nations as the U.S. which reserve the right to kill those who do not follow, be they murderers or whatever the rules of which legislators frame to pacify the whims of a public to the list of similar terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea. I find the idea amusing, what do you think? :huh:

 

By its very own definition, the USA is a terrorist organisation and I am talking about its actions abroad (though domestically it isn't much better).

 

The truth is simple: if they do it, they are terrorists, if we do it, we are defending ourselves. So when we directly supplied the the Indonesian army with intelligence and weapons, so they could murder nearly a million political dissidents in 1965, we were 'defending our values' from communism. It never ceases to amaze me how important people think 'containment' was, even after the muder of millions at our hands, directly or indirectly. Were our actions in line with terrorism?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbTnbW2d14

Edited February 25, 2011 by Stardusk

[grannywils]

I'm not sure that I missed your point Stardusk, but you may have misinterpreted mine. I did in fact point out that it was our own behaviour that had resulted in the need for our presence in the current hotspot (and most others). I also pointed out that the presence might be diplomatic, not necessarily physical or military. It would surely be my personal hope that it would be minimal, and not necessarily "interventionist"

 

I cannot disagree with you with respect to our support of dictatorships over the past decades. However, what I was trying to get at was that by casting blame at our past behaviour and then running for cover we do nothing to help to solve the problem that we have largely helped to create. Nor do we do anything to right the wrongs that we may have had a hand in creating.

 

Neither Norway nor Iceland have engaged in anything like the kinds of behaviours that we have. Nor do they have the kind of power that we have; so I will pass on any discussion regarding whether or not they are isolationist, as it is a moot point.

 

I was about to enter into a diatribe on women's rights in the Middle East and the past, vs the present in that area. However, that is a topic perhaps for another thread.

 

Suffice it to say, that to some extent you are correct in saying that we cannot right all of the wrongs in the world. More importantly, we have no right to presume to try. But I do believe that where we had a hand in causing some of the problems we have a duty to make an effort to lend a hand in the solution.

 

 

[Aurielius]

There is another point and I think even pragmatic (I don't know what else to call him) Aurelius must agree on. Yes, women and minority groups do not fair well under Islam but we have already engaged in crusades to no avail. Western democratic thought is the synthesis of centuries upon centuries of developments (political, social, religious) and bloodshed. It took more than 2000 years. We cannot expect the Middle East to follow suit that quickly. They must engage in their own struggles and people will most certainly suffer for it but it is a social and historical necessity. Telling people how to live has never worked and does not work now either. We have so many problems in our own respective countries, so sure, we can keep a watchful eye but that should be about it. I do not see how constantly repeating the same failed, interventionist foreign policy helps anything...except helping us in more failures.

OK, I can live with pragmatist as an appellation, I do agree that the basis of western democracy did not spring full blown from the brow of Athena and that it took centuries to evolve. However the west had to cover unknown ground, would it not be prudent to impart the knowledge gained through that process to those that are about to embark on the journey. I also agree that we cannot micromanage their path to representation but there are pitfalls that we should help them avoid at the same time. Though the examples of the Scandinavian countries are true but you might be forgetting their prior interference in the affairs of northern Europe, only after their expansion was contained did such altruistic intent evolve.Though I have said it before, I will repeat it...the world is too interconnected to stand aloof and wait for events to percolate beyond any peaceful means of intervening. The choice is between diplomatic means or waiting until it requires boots on the ground..again. As much as it might astonish you, I find war abhorrent as a means of exerting influence but am resigned (pragmatically) to it's necessity at times. Those that have seen the face of war are generally the least enthralled with it's supposed glories.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Aurielius

[HappyHerring]

Is an organisation or state which uses either the threat or actual violence against citizens who do not comply with the will of the organisation a terrorist organisation?

If so then we must add such nations as the U.S. which reserve the right to kill those who do not follow, be they murderers or whatever the rules of which legislators frame to pacify the whims of a public to the list of similar terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea. I find the idea amusing, what do you think? :huh:

 

By its very own definition, the USA is a terrorist organisation and I am talking about its actions abroad (though domestically it isn't much better).

 

The truth is simple: if they do it, they are terrorists, if we do it, we are defending ourselves. So when we directly supplied the the Indonesian army with intelligence and weapons, so they could murder nearly a million political dissidents in 1965, we were 'defending our values' from communism. It never ceases to amaze me how important people think 'containment' was, even after the muder of millions at our hands, directly or indirectly. Were our actions in line with terrorism?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbTnbW2d14

 

Forgive me for my poorly framed, not very funny, joke. I was interested in whether a state that reserves the right to execute criminals as both punishment and object lesson to other citizens not to go beyond the pale can be labelled a terrorist state. I think this does matter as every functioning state that I can think of is founded upon the basis of being able in extreme circumstances to inflict punishment and violence upon those who do not comply with the government's interpretation of the popular will.

[SpellAndShield]

Is an organisation or state which uses either the threat or actual violence against citizens who do not comply with the will of the organisation a terrorist organisation?

If so then we must add such nations as the U.S. which reserve the right to kill those who do not follow, be they murderers or whatever the rules of which legislators frame to pacify the whims of a public to the list of similar terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea. I find the idea amusing, what do you think? :huh:

 

By its very own definition, the USA is a terrorist organisation and I am talking about its actions abroad (though domestically it isn't much better).

 

The truth is simple: if they do it, they are terrorists, if we do it, we are defending ourselves. So when we directly supplied the the Indonesian army with intelligence and weapons, so they could murder nearly a million political dissidents in 1965, we were 'defending our values' from communism. It never ceases to amaze me how important people think 'containment' was, even after the muder of millions at our hands, directly or indirectly. Were our actions in line with terrorism?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbTnbW2d14

 

Forgive me for my poorly framed, not very funny, joke. I was interested in whether a state that reserves the right to execute criminals as both punishment and object lesson to other citizens not to go beyond the pale can be labelled a terrorist state. I think this does matter as every functioning state that I can think of is founded upon the basis of being able in extreme circumstances to inflict punishment and violence upon those who do not comply with the government's interpretation of the popular will.

 

Black Operations are not popular will, not even remotely.

[HappyHerring]

Is an organisation or state which uses either the threat or actual violence against citizens who do not comply with the will of the organisation a terrorist organisation?

If so then we must add such nations as the U.S. which reserve the right to kill those who do not follow, be they murderers or whatever the rules of which legislators frame to pacify the whims of a public to the list of similar terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea. I find the idea amusing, what do you think? :huh:

 

By its very own definition, the USA is a terrorist organisation and I am talking about its actions abroad (though domestically it isn't much better).

 

The truth is simple: if they do it, they are terrorists, if we do it, we are defending ourselves. So when we directly supplied the the Indonesian army with intelligence and weapons, so they could murder nearly a million political dissidents in 1965, we were 'defending our values' from communism. It never ceases to amaze me how important people think 'containment' was, even after the muder of millions at our hands, directly or indirectly. Were our actions in line with terrorism?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbTnbW2d14

 

Forgive me for my poorly framed, not very funny, joke. I was interested in whether a state that reserves the right to execute criminals as both punishment and object lesson to other citizens not to go beyond the pale can be labelled a terrorist state. I think this does matter as every functioning state that I can think of is founded upon the basis of being able in extreme circumstances to inflict punishment and violence upon those who do not comply with the government's interpretation of the popular will.

 

Black Operations are not popular will, not even remotely.

 

I refer to domestic killings which result from judicial process such as those executed for rape/murder etc.