Americans (and others) should read this article

[chris2k]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07...currentPage=all

 

No big comments from my side. Everyone that knows history knows how bad this is. (hint 1953)

The author is well known, so it's most likely true.

 

In my opinion that's terrorism as well, funded by your taxes.

[killbot1000]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07...currentPage=all

 

No big comments from my side. Everyone that knows history knows how bad this is. (hint 1953)

The author is well known, so it's most likely true.

 

In my opinion that's terrorism as well, funded by your taxes.

 

Yep, I totally agree. We Americans only have to look as far as our own government to realize what terrorism is...

[JonTheSavage]

Well, it came out in the MSM that the US assisted the Taliban in a prison break out a few days ago. I forgot where I read it. Bin Laden, it is well known now, was, and still is, a CIA tactition.

[Descalzo]

I'm curious. I'd like to know what kinds of covert activities you guys would approve of. Is there ANY instance in US history where the military, CIA, OSS, etc. performed a covert operation in foreign territory that you would not consider terrorism?

 

Also, I'd like to know your definition of terrorism.

 

Mine goes something like this:

Terror used as a weapon against another people.

 

For example, the Palestinians' attacks against Israel would be examples of terror attacks, because terror is the weapon: it can happen at any time, in any place. The Israeli responses to the Palestinian attacks would NOT be examples of terrorism, because terror is not the weapon.

 

Likewise, in this case, terrorism wouldn't fit the US government's activities in Iran because terror is not their objective. Their objective is, apparently, to find out what they are doing, where they are, etc. If the military's objective was to inspire terror in the Iranian military that, "Oh my goodness, this could totally happen to me!" then this would be considered a terror attack.

[chris2k]

I'm curious. I'd like to know what kinds of covert activities you guys would approve of. Is there ANY instance in US history where the military, CIA, OSS, etc. performed a covert operation in foreign territory that you would not consider terrorism?

No. At least not since WW2.

Also, I'd like to know your definition of terrorism.

 

Mine goes something like this:

Terror used as a weapon against another people.

 

For example, the Palestinians' attacks against Israel would be examples of terror attacks, because terror is the weapon: it can happen at any time, in any place. The Israeli responses to the Palestinian attacks would NOT be examples of terrorism, because terror is not the weapon.

Bad example in my opinion. There is no right/wrong in this long conflict. Also this is no good example for the US. The US doesn't have enemies directly in the neighbour. Actually not even on the same continent and they have two big oceans between their "enemies". If they are so considered of their security, they should invest the money into border/airport security instead of wars.

 

Likewise, in this case, terrorism wouldn't fit the US government's activities in Iran because terror is not their objective. Their objective is, apparently, to find out what they are doing, where they are, etc. If the military's objective was to inspire terror in the Iranian military that, "Oh my goodness, this could totally happen to me!" then this would be considered a terror attack.

Nobody knows what they are up to yet. If they just wanted to spy, they could use satellites. Also the government does not need to find evidence. They just say it, the newspapers write it, the people believe it. I'm not into conspiracy but I know history and that leaves little hope for peace.

[Descalzo]

You've given me no help, then, in understanding your definition of terrorism, nor in why the USA would have had any justifiable covert operations in WWII, but never since. The border/ocean situation has not changed since WWII.

[chris2k]

1.

 

terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

2.

The US was in a war then. Right now it isn't in war with Iran, so I think covert ops are not legitimate. That also applies for all other covert ops in the past in where the US hasn't declared war (especially in south american states). The cold war was different in my opinion. The Soviet Union was a big player too and not some small country that can not fight back.

 

3.

I didn't say that it did. It was an answer to your Israel/Palestine example. Those states are direct neighbours. The US does not have a situation like this.

[JonTheSavage]

I'm curious. I'd like to know what kinds of covert activities you guys would approve of. Is there ANY instance in US history where the military, CIA, OSS, etc. performed a covert operation in foreign territory that you would not consider terrorism?

 

Also, I'd like to know your definition of terrorism.

 

Mine goes something like this:

Terror used as a weapon against another people.

 

Terrorism according to the dicionary.

1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

Sounds like Bush is a terrorist. Since congress has done nothing, they are terrorists, and the CIA is a terrorist group. The US, and UK media are terrorist groups as well since they love to spread a "state of fear". So there you go.

 

Dictionary.com says by definition that the US government is a terrorist group.

 

BTW: Its called a "False Flag" operation. Google it.

[Descalzo]

Chris2k, I have to say that by your definition I can see how you would call it terrorism.

 

I think it's a gray area.This is a clandestine activity, and it sounds like it's trying to help topple the Iranian religious government from within. Since it doesn't appear to be aimed at inspiring terror, I would call it something else.

 

But since the orders and missions seem to authorize violence, I can see how you could call it terrorism.

Terrorism according to the dicionary.1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.Sounds like Bush is a terrorist. Since congress has done nothing, they are terrorists, and the CIA is a terrorist group. The US, and UK media are terrorist groups as well since they love to spread a "state of fear". So there you go.Dictionary.com says by definition that the US government is a terrorist group.

 

Dude, are you telling me I should be afraid of my government? Are you trying to instill within me a state of fear?

 

FREAKING TERRORIST!!!!

 

Edit: formatting

[chris2k]

Chris2k, I have to say that by your definition I can see how you would call it terrorism.

 

I think it's a gray area.This is a clandestine activity, and it sounds like it's trying to help topple the Iranian religious government from within. Since it doesn't appear to be aimed at inspiring terror, I would call it something else.

 

But since the orders and missions seem to authorize violence, I can see how you could call it terrorism.

 

The problem I have is, that I know too much examples of the CIAs involvements. Did you ever hear about the CIA doing anything good?

Fact is, they are doing "something" in Iran. We don't know what yet, but it's very unlikely they are doing anything good to the people that live there. I'm not saying Iran is the nicest country, but I don't see them starting wars.

 

Oh and George Bush isn't religious? How many times does he say "God is on our side" and stuff like that? I actually don't believe that he believes in god, but he knows that many americans do so.

[Descalzo]

The problem I have is, that I know too much examples of the CIAs involvements. Did you ever hear about the CIA doing anything good?

Fact is, they are doing "something" in Iran. We don't know what yet, but it's very unlikely they are doing anything good to the people that live there. I'm not saying Iran is the nicest country, but I don't see them starting wars.

I'm sure they are doing something in Iran. I am not sure it's good. Problem is, that in and of itself doesn't make it terrorism. We have a word already for bad people: jerkface.

Oh and George Bush isn't religious? How many times does he say "God is on our side" and stuff like that? I actually don't believe that he believes in god, but he knows that many americans do so.

Um, what?

[JonTheSavage]

Chris2k, I have to say that by your definition I can see how you would call it terrorism.

 

I think it's a gray area.This is a clandestine activity, and it sounds like it's trying to help topple the Iranian religious government from within. Since it doesn't appear to be aimed at inspiring terror, I would call it something else.

 

But since the orders and missions seem to authorize violence, I can see how you could call it terrorism.

 

 

Dude, are you telling me I should be afraid of my government? Are you trying to instill within me a state of fear?

 

FREAKING TERRORIST!!!!

 

Edit: formatting

 

You said the word "fear". See NOW, you belong to al-CIA-da.

 

EDIT: "Something" in Iran, is blowing up their Mosques, and killing their people. If they fight back, then its another Bush war for profit. The CIA IS al-CIA-da.

[killbot1000]

I'm curious. I'd like to know what kinds of covert activities you guys would approve of. Is there ANY instance in US history where the military, CIA, OSS, etc. performed a covert operation in foreign territory that you would not consider terrorism?Also, I'd like to know your definition of terrorism.Mine goes something like this:Terror used as a weapon against another people.For example, the Palestinians' attacks against Israel would be examples of terror attacks, because terror is the weapon: it can happen at any time, in any place. The Israeli responses to the Palestinian attacks would NOT be examples of terrorism, because terror is not the weapon.Likewise, in this case, terrorism wouldn't fit the US government's activities in Iran because terror is not their objective. Their objective is, apparently, to find out what they are doing, where they are, etc. If the military's objective was to inspire terror in the Iranian military that, "Oh my goodness, this could totally happen to me!" then this would be considered a terror attack.

 

My definition of terrorism is:The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

 

This definition is the official dictionary definition. It is also my definition.Whether or not we define something as terrorism is completely relative.I can turn your whole argument inside out for terrorism.

 

For example, your Palestinian argument (a subject many people are very ignorant about by the way). Israel frequently tears down Palestinian settlements, settlements in which the residents hold the deed to their land and it is simply buldozed down and paved over with a new, Israeli settlement. Palestinian communities are cut off from each other by gates, walls, checkpoints, and other Jewish Settlements. Palestinian vehicles are not allowed to drive on the roads. Palestinians are not awarded any rights or representation in the Israeli Government, and Palestinians are unable to work in Israeli settlements, at the same time, it is these Israeli settlements which contain nearly all of the economic wealth of the region. Palestinian people are forced to live in a country sized prison so to speak. Also, how arrogant of you to assume that all Palestinians are the same. (are all Americans the same? All Europeans the same?). Palestinian people have children, just like we do. Do you think they really raise their children for 20 years, only to see them blow themselves up? I don't believe so. I believe that the vast majority of Palestinians want the best for their children and want to see them succeed, just like we do.

 

To tear the other part of your Palestinian argument down. Israel is not responding to the Palestinians, the Palestinians are Responding to the Israelis, you have the situation completely reversed. You only need to go so far as a history book to find that out

 

Israel is in reality being unfair to the Palestinians, and have been for quite some time.

 

This "love" that we share for Israel is propaganda. We should treat them no differently than we treat anybody else. We should stop giving them weapons and money for what I consider to be Ethnic cleansing. If we put pressure on them to treat the Palestinians with respect, it would be done. The simple fact though is that we don't give a {censored} about them, and I doubt that we ever will.Given the situation, one could call the Israeli government a Terrorist Regime. The Israelis much like the Palestinians use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

 

The US does the same, we are trying to get Iran to get rid of their Uranium enrichment program while we have been doing the same thing for decades, we have economic sanctions on them, and we are trying to get the rest of the world behind us on pressuring Iran to abandon this program. We are using violence and/or threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

 

Israel a month ago launched fighter jets into the Mediterranean sea (the distance it would take to get to Iran) and performed training exercises. One could argue that they are using violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

 

Iran did a similar test just recently with missiles, some of the missiles could reach Israel, this would be the same thing. Also, has Iran really threatened us? Think about it, every instance we have with Iran seems to be centered around a problem WE have with them, not something they said and then we responded to, it is the opposite.

 

So by the official definition of terrorism, all of our respective countries are terrorist regimes (or have engaged in terrorist actions)

 

Don't kid yourself, terrorism isn't just a tool to cause terror, that would be quite pointless. It is a tool to incite political change. We are having to deal with what I like to call "rebellion" instead of "terrorism" because of our (the US) historical actions within the Middle East.

 

Most powerful countries are terrorist regimes, with the money and power to manipulate the picture in their own favor. Everybody just needs to wake up, when that happens the world will be a better place overnight.

 

Chris2k, I have to say that by your definition I can see how you would call it terrorism.

 

I think it's a gray area.This is a clandestine activity, and it sounds like it's trying to help topple the Iranian religious government from within. Since it doesn't appear to be aimed at inspiring terror, I would call it something else.

 

But since the orders and missions seem to authorize violence, I can see how you could call it terrorism.

 

Dude, are you telling me I should be afraid of my government? Are you trying to instill within me a state of fear?

 

Reality Check.

 

YOU are the one with the alternate definition. We have all been using the official definition, time to get on board and use the official definition, just because we don't agree with your definition doesn't make the definition we use "our definition". This is how the Bush Administration has been able to get away with as much as it has, it simply redefines words. Terrorism has nothing to do with "inspiring terror". It has everything to do with political change which either may (more often) or may not involve fear. Also in your last comment, you simply used your definition again against us (or jonthesavage). which Proves nothing. We are not trying to instill you with a state of fear, we (or at least I) am trying to tell you that your definition of Terrorism is quite simply...wrong. 3 of us have provided you with the proper definition, I suggest you use it, and reformulate your argument

[Descalzo]

My definition of terrorism is:The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Mine goes something like this:

Terror used as a weapon against another people.

 

Here's another:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. (wikipedia)

 

And another:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.(from dictionary.com)

 

And a particularly useful one, particularly for this thread:

Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. (this is from terrorism-research.com)

 

 

NONE of these definitions exclude mine. I was careful to use a qualifier: "something like this...." Furthermore, if your definition agrees with the dictionary, it does not mean it is not still 'your' definition (at least in one important sense: you subscribe to it: it is yours). And you are quite right that if I want to communicate effectively then I need to make sure that you and I both share a definition of terrorism that we can agree on. That was my entire point.

 

You referred to my Israeli-Palestinian argument. It was no argument, but an example. Using all of these definitions, the Palestinians, regardless of justification, are engaging in violent, unlawful activities designed to coerce the Israeli government to rescind many of those issues you pointed out. Israel may be guilty of terrorism, but I don't think so, at least not in their military responses to Palestinian violence. Would the North-Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam be considered terrorist? Probably not. It's probably closer to subjugation or conquest. At worst, these Israeli acts you brought up would be considered in this light. This would not be terrorism, it would be something worse.

 

The Israeli-Iran, US-Iran, etc. examples you bring up are very enlightening. In such a light, I think I could agree that they are terrorist. However, it also makes me think the word may be overused.

 

Also, rebellion would often (maybe always?) include terrorism, according to your definition.

[killbot1000]

Here's another:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. (wikipedia)

 

And another:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.(from dictionary.com)

 

And a particularly useful one, particularly for this thread:

Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. (this is from terrorism-research.com)

NONE of these definitions exclude mine. I was careful to use a qualifier: "something like this...." Furthermore, if your definition agrees with the dictionary, it does not mean it is not still 'your' definition (at least in one important sense: you subscribe to it: it is yours). And you are quite right that if I want to communicate effectively then I need to make sure that you and I both share a definition of terrorism that we can agree on. That was my entire point.

 

You referred to my Israeli-Palestinian argument. It was no argument, but an example. Using all of these definitions, the Palestinians, regardless of justification, are engaging in violent, unlawful activities designed to coerce the Israeli government to rescind many of those issues you pointed out. Israel may be guilty of terrorism, but I don't think so, at least not in their military responses to Palestinian violence. Would the North-Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam be considered terrorist? Probably not. It's probably closer to subjugation or conquest. At worst, these Israeli acts you brought up would be considered in this light. This would not be terrorism, it would be something worse.

 

The Israeli-Iran, US-Iran, etc. examples you bring up are very enlightening. In such a light, I think I could agree that they are terrorist. However, it also makes me think the word may be overused.

 

Also, rebellion would often (maybe always?) include terrorism, according to your definition.

 

I completely agree that the word terrorism is overused. According to the definition, it is easy for any nation or group of people to be considered terrorists.

 

I think that a lot of what we are talking about is overblown both in the media and between people. In situations such as these we need to maintain a cool head, and maintain our reasoning, and to not lump a whole group of people with what we call "the enemy".

 

Good rebuttle!

[djet]

Yeah, I really dislike it when people don't use their heads and declare that all Muslims are radical....

 

It's basically like saying all Christians think that all {censored} should be struck down by heavenly lightning.

[Mebster]

For example, the Palestinians' attacks against Israel would be examples of terror attacks, because terror is the weapon: it can happen at any time, in any place. The Israeli responses to the Palestinian attacks would NOT be examples of terrorism, because terror is not the weapon.

I don't know if I should fall down laughing or crying.

[mifki]

lol, {censored} israel. Some people are still so {censored} ignorant its sad.

[djet]

I don't know if I should fall down laughing or crying.

 

Same here.....

[Descalzo]

I don't know if I should fall down laughing or crying.

Come right out and say it: you think I'm trying to justify Israel.

[Fernicus]

My definition of terrorism is:The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

 

This definition is the official dictionary definition. It is also my definition.Whether or not we define something as terrorism is completely relative.I can turn your whole argument inside out for terrorism.

 

For example, your Palestinian argument (a subject many people are very ignorant about by the way). Israel frequently tears down Palestinian settlements, settlements in which the residents hold the deed to their land and it is simply buldozed down and paved over with a new, Israeli settlement. Palestinian communities are cut off from each other by gates, walls, checkpoints, and other Jewish Settlements. Palestinian vehicles are not allowed to drive on the roads. Palestinians are not awarded any rights or representation in the Israeli Government, and Palestinians are unable to work in Israeli settlements, at the same time, it is these Israeli settlements which contain nearly all of the economic wealth of the region. Palestinian people are forced to live in a country sized prison so to speak. Also, how arrogant of you to assume that all Palestinians are the same. (are all Americans the same? All Europeans the same?). Palestinian people have children, just like we do. Do you think they really raise their children for 20 years, only to see them blow themselves up? I don't believe so. I believe that the vast majority of Palestinians want the best for their children and want to see them succeed, just like we do.

 

To tear the other part of your Palestinian argument down. Israel is not responding to the Palestinians, the Palestinians are Responding to the Israelis, you have the situation completely reversed. You only need to go so far as a history book to find that out

 

Israel is in reality being unfair to the Palestinians, and have been for quite some time.

 

This "love" that we share for Israel is propaganda. We should treat them no differently than we treat anybody else. We should stop giving them weapons and money for what I consider to be Ethnic cleansing. If we put pressure on them to treat the Palestinians with respect, it would be done. The simple fact though is that we don't give a {censored} about them, and I doubt that we ever will.Given the situation, one could call the Israeli government a Terrorist Regime. The Israelis much like the Palestinians use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

 

The US does the same, we are trying to get Iran to get rid of their Uranium enrichment program while we have been doing the same thing for decades, we have economic sanctions on them, and we are trying to get the rest of the world behind us on pressuring Iran to abandon this program. We are using violence and/or threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

 

Israel a month ago launched fighter jets into the Mediterranean sea (the distance it would take to get to Iran) and performed training exercises. One could argue that they are using violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

 

Iran did a similar test just recently with missiles, some of the missiles could reach Israel, this would be the same thing. Also, has Iran really threatened us? Think about it, every instance we have with Iran seems to be centered around a problem WE have with them, not something they said and then we responded to, it is the opposite.

 

So by the official definition of terrorism, all of our respective countries are terrorist regimes (or have engaged in terrorist actions)

 

Don't kid yourself, terrorism isn't just a tool to cause terror, that would be quite pointless. It is a tool to incite political change. We are having to deal with what I like to call "rebellion" instead of "terrorism" because of our (the US) historical actions within the Middle East.

 

Most powerful countries are terrorist regimes, with the money and power to manipulate the picture in their own favor. Everybody just needs to wake up, when that happens the world will be a better place overnight.

Reality Check.

 

YOU are the one with the alternate definition. We have all been using the official definition, time to get on board and use the official definition, just because we don't agree with your definition doesn't make the definition we use "our definition". This is how the Bush Administration has been able to get away with as much as it has, it simply redefines words. Terrorism has nothing to do with "inspiring terror". It has everything to do with political change which either may (more often) or may not involve fear. Also in your last comment, you simply used your definition again against us (or jonthesavage). which Proves nothing. We are not trying to instill you with a state of fear, we (or at least I) am trying to tell you that your definition of Terrorism is quite simply...wrong. 3 of us have provided you with the proper definition, I suggest you use it, and reformulate your argument

 

Man, I'm clapping my hands so loud you should be able to hear it. And I live in Brazil.

 

I really don't give a damn to which word or definition is correct. We all know by nature what's right and what's wrong. Our mom's taught us. By this simple definition, all the U.S activities at arabic countries are definitely wrong.

 

For example, the Palestinians' attacks against Israel would be examples of terror attacks, because terror is the weapon: it can happen at any time, in any place. The Israeli responses to the Palestinian attacks would NOT be examples of terrorism, because terror is not the weapon.

 

What's the relevance of not knowing the time and place of an attack when you have the power to blow up an entire city? Go to Gaza ask all the people who lost their children if they are not terrorized. Go there and ask their definition of terrorism.

 

Man, stop hiding yourself behind a game of words. Check your heart. Go out, hear what your neighbor have to say, travel to iraq if you dare. I'm sure you won't able to sustain this pseudo-neutral position any longer.

[JonTheSavage]

What's the relevance of not knowing the time and place of an attack when you have the power to blow up an entire city? Go to Gaza ask all the people who lost their children if they are not terrorized. Go there and ask their definition of terrorism.

 

What they are doing in Gaza is terrible. Thousands have been murdered there, and their homes taken. The Gaza strip is the terrorist capitol of the world.

[killbot1000]

Come right out and say it: you think I'm trying to justify Israel.

 

It's not about justification, its just the image that Palestinians are bad people and Israeli's are good people, when the reality is that neither is true.

 

What is true is that there is a situation over there, and one entire group of people are being treated like third class citizens simply because of their race/religion/historical background. Not to mention that as little as 50 years ago, Jewish people made up less than 7% of the population in what is now Israel. To get Israel to where it is today there was much unnatural expansion.

 

We should treat Israel no differently than we would treat any other country. We should use the pressure of our diplomacy to make sure that the Palestinians are treated fairly.

 

I guess we only care about CERTAIN groups of people being ethnically cleansed. Oh wait, we just don't care as long as its not us.

 

This simple fact shows me that people on the average are neither good nor bad, they simply are. It seems to me that most people (and at the macro level, countries), are motivated purely out of self interest. It turns my stomach.

[Descalzo]

It's not about justification, its just the image that Palestinians are bad people and Israeli's are good people, when the reality is that neither is true.

Well, good. Because I'm not trying to justify anyone, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis. My only concern in this thread is to point out that we are starting to use Terrorism as a label for anything we don't like.

I really don't give a damn to which word or definition is correct. We all know by nature what's right and what's wrong. Our mom's taught us. By this simple definition, all the U.S activities at arabic countries are definitely wrong.What's the relevance of not knowing the time and place of an attack when you have the power to blow up an entire city? Go to Gaza ask all the people who lost their children if they are not terrorized. Go there and ask their definition of terrorism.Man, stop hiding yourself behind a game of words. Check your heart. Go out, hear what your neighbor have to say, travel to iraq if you dare. I'm sure you won't able to sustain this pseudo-neutral position any longer.

I think the real problem here is that I have committed the blasphemy of trying to look at USA/Iraq/Palestine/Israel rationally. I have tried to talk seriously about the words that are used on us to make us feel one way or another about what is going on over there. There are evil people in the world. These people want us, at all costs, not to think about what the USA/Israel is doing. They want us to not think about what Hamas/Iran/Whatever is doing, either. These people (let's call them controllers for this purpose) want us to feel, not think. One of the ways they achieve this is by the use of buzzwords. When you and I use terrorism to mean "stuff I think is wrong" or when we allow the 'controllers' to use words like terrorism on something they don't like, then we are playing right into their hands. We give up and let these controllers think for us. They decide when to engage our memories of our mothers' teachings of good vs. evil.When we begin to think for ourselves, there's a chance we won't let them do what they want with us.

[chris2k]

Well, good. Because I'm not trying to justify anyone, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis. My only concern in this thread is to point out that we are starting to use Terrorism as a label for anything we don't like.

 

If you mean the covert ops, what would you call it? I mean it's no secret that any intelligence agency (not just the CIA) kills anyone who gets in their way. Just check out some of their missions in the history. Or is that not terrorism for you because they are "approved" to do that stuff?

 

If they fuq up then Iran will be pissed but maybe that is the plan? Time will show...