Defining terrorism - a poll (page 3)

Gadget

Ok, that is just stupid and insulting.

I find it stupid and insulting that our government is treating us in this way. Its just another of the ways they put 'spin' on things.

rem

Yeah, it's stupid and insulting to claim that there are people who want to carry out attacks on our soil.

Remember Richard Reid? 9/11? WTC Bombings? They are continually finding and thwarting terrorist plots not only Internationally, but on American soil. Who's over hyping it? It's happening.

Am I terrorized by the reality check? No. Was 9/11 terror? Yes. Don't insult my intelligence.

rem

Its not stupid and insulting to claim that there are people who want to carry out attacks on our soil. It is insulting for governments to embelish documents to convince people that this is happening so it can go and attack another country. This is the basis of the Hutton Inquiry that is ongoing in London, its investigating the death of a scientist amid allegations that the government had changed documents to frighten the country into going to war. If this doesn't fit the dictionary definition of terrerism I don't know what does.

rem

If this doesn't fit the dictionary definition of terrerism I don't know what does.

That's apparent.

rem

Simon

There were and are lots of reports and stories that are purely and simply designed to increase people's anxiety and fear and "make" them support the governments actions. "We could be attacked in 45 minutes" was fanciful but it worked ... people were all for striking first.

What happened to all the pre-war Anthrax stuff in the USA ... didn't that contribute to the general feeling of unease and that the country was under attack?

Yes, there are people who want to attack but whether there is clear and present danger is something totally different.

Another example: the British arms dealer recently caught trying to sell an anti-aircraft missile to someone in the states. Terrified? I bet a lot are. But look more at the details and you see that the person trying to buy it was an intelligence agent ... so it is not as it first appeared, that is, people in the USA plotting to bring down an airline but simply the government hyping up the threat level - if they hadn't instigated the whole thing (trying to buy one) then there would be no story at all.

rem

That is laughable, Simon. So you are saying that the coverage of the sting operation was meant to hype fears? Everyone knew it was a sting operation - do you think we are stupid? I'm not sure where you are going with that. I don't know anyone who was 'terrified' from the story. Concerned, yes, and rightfully so. People are willing to sell sell arms for terrorist purposes into this country and there are people who are willing to purchase them and use them. That is reality.

And are you saying that the government was responsible for the pre-war anthrax stuff? Or are you saying the government overhyped it? It's difficult to tell where you are coming from here.

rem

Simon

People are willing to sell sell arms for terrorist purposes into this country and there are people who are willing to purchase them and use them. That is reality.

Yes, people will sell arms, but they were only trying to sell them to order because someone was pretending to want to buy them. It "appeared" that there were people trying to shoot down an airline when the reality was, people working for the government were the only ones interested in buying one and creating the market for it.

And are you saying that the government was responsible for the pre-war anthrax stuff? Or are you saying the government overhyped it? It's difficult to tell where you are coming from here.

Please tell me, where did the Anthrax come from?

rem

when the reality was, people working for the government were the only ones interested in buying one and creating the market for it.

Is that really reality?

Please tell me, where did the Anthrax come from?

Do you think George Bush was planting it or something? They did target Daschel, remember. hehe. Sounds like you are connecting dots and finding patterns where none exist. Of course the Anthrax came from a government source... that doesn't mean the government had anything to do with it. I'm surprised I have to make the distinction.

I live in America, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the amount of terror we are feeling here in the states. It's a concern, but it's nothing that anyone I know dwells on. Most of the people I know that supported the Iraq war did so for humanitarian and UN resolution reasons - not because we felt a terrorism threat from Saddam. I think many people here were in favor of it because of the high probability that a continued policy of containment would lead to another North Korea situation. That situation is more scary than anything, really (especially here on the west coast), but again, it's not something anyone I know dwells on.

rem

William Penwell

So by the following definition, one would have to conclude they were terrorists because they were using force with the "intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments"

ter·ror·ism (t
n.
"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."

So who are the terrorists in Palestine? Again it depends on who's side your on.

Also I agree with the point that anyone that kills innocent men, woman and children are terrorists.

Will

heathen

I think that all of the above are terrorists. The US is known to kill innocents so is britain, they only look at it as collateral damage and not murder . The US in particular was known to sell WOMD to saddam when he was terrorizing Iran . They even sided with bin laden against the russian invasion . As far as I know neither one took credit for 911 . I refuse to be brain washed into believing everything the government says about motives .

Defining terrorism - a poll

Share this