A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist

"To me your post clearly smacks of double standards"

POSTED BY: YASSERYOUSUFI

Back atcha! That was the point of my previous post. One can argue the morality of war but once it has been engaged, it is no longer an argument of morality, it is a test of strength. Right now, the US gets hung with all sorts of moral judgements on how it conducts war from the horror of collateral damage to demands that it follow all Geneva Conventions in its prosecution of those wars while adversaries are given a pass. That is the double standard I see.

War is a collective enterprise and deciding who the combatants decide to lump into the enemy is a self defined manner but lumping voters as guilty as people who host combatants in the same house is a stretch. The interesting question for those who want to lump all citizens of a nation engaging in combat with irregulars projecting war on to civilians is whether the reverse is justifiable and breaking out the neutron bombs in response is justifiable.

It seems that the war without boundaries idea only works if only one side is playing that game.

--------------------------------------

To me your post clearly smacks of double standards and is a tad bit racist as well. So when a democracy decides its OK to shock and awe an entirely innocent nation and kill tens of thousands of their citizens, we shouldn't be critizing that! Dont people have responsibility about who they choose in democracies? Both the American's and the British re-elected those lying moron as their heads of state to continue their wars of terror inspite of all the lies and the deaths and destruction, what does that say about the people of those countries?

BTW Gaza is a democracy! When they defend themselves against an occupying country which has imposed a crippling siege denying even baby milk and life saving drugs to enter the territory, thats terrorism too! Its like damned if you do and damned if you dont. Thats why I believe Terrorism is a racist term. Why cant you come up with the definition of terrorism anyway? You like throwing around the word! Can you find me a definition for terrorism that only indicts muslims as terrorists and excludes Bush, Blair, Livni?

That question cuts both ways actually. In Pakistan, according America's own Brookings Institute the Drone's kill 10 civilians for every terrorist they take out. So if the American drone handler sitting thousands of miles away in some CIA center in US has the license to murder say a whole family of 6 or 7 people just because they happen to be near a Taliban, then Taliban can also say its fair game to kill those people who elect such government who then issue these licences to CIA handlers. So London bombings should be OK because British people elected Tony Blair trice and therefore contributed willfully to his terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Same goes for Spain and the Australians killed in Bali.

BTW, Faisal Shehzad who hailed from the areas where there are frequent drone attacks didn't say Islam was his motivation for planting that bomb rather he wanted to avenge the death of his fellow Pashtuns killed by Americans. Is that fair game too?

POSTED BY: YASSERYOUSUFI

War is a collective enterprise and deciding who the combatants decide to lump into the enemy is a self defined manner but lumping voters as guilty as people who host combatants in the same house is a stretch. The interesting question for those who want to lump all citizens of a nation engaging in combat with irregulars projecting war on to civilians is whether the reverse is justifiable and breaking out the neutron bombs in response is justifiable.

It seems that the war without boundaries idea only works if only one side is playing that game.

C O M E - H O M E - B R A V E - B O Y' S & G i R L S!

"GO WEST YOUNG-LADS, Go-WEST"
COME TO MOMMA & POPPA & CO.!

B R E A K I N G -- N E W S:

BEHOLD: A Great "Fruedian Slip Of Genuine Prophecy" leaching out subliminally by direct MEME Genetic Telepathy!

Bin Ladens Son, 29 year old OMAR, said, "My dad is on the Earth but I don't know where. He's still alive. If that sort of person dies, you could never make it a secret. The world changes if he dies"

B i N --- L A D E N --- I S --- D E A D!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/7891544/Osama-bin-Ladens-son-says-his-father-is-still-alive.html

B I N --- L A D E N --- I S --- D E A D!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/7891544/Osama-bin-Ladens-son-says-his-father-is-still-alive.html

B I N --- L A D E N --- I S --- D E A D! Since 06.??.07

___

WE [i] Told YE So!

We, The "HUUMATE-Ummah" Eyes & Ears, Intelligentsia INT'L, Never LIE!

WE are "APOCALYPTIC-ON"s NOt "APOCALYPTIC-OFF"s!

___

D i N G --- D O N G, -- W O R L D' S

S A T A N i C --- V E R S U S

L E A D E R --- IS --- D E A D!

___

.. Credit To "JJ" .. @ .. http://onwapo.com/

EDBYRONADAMS wrote,

"That begs the question whether terror tactics against civilians who harbor terrorists is justified?"

**************************************

That question cuts both ways actually. In Pakistan, according America's own Brookings Institute the Drone's kill 10 civilians for every terrorist they take out. So if the American drone handler sitting thousands of miles away in some CIA center in US has the license to murder say a whole family of 6 or 7 people just because they happen to be near a Taliban, then Taliban can also say its fair game to kill those people who elect such government who then issue these licences to CIA handlers. So London bombings should be OK because British people elected Tony Blair trice and therefore contributed willfully to his terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Same goes for Spain and the Australians killed in Bali.

BTW, Faisal Shehzad who hailed from the areas where there are frequent drone attacks didn't say Islam was his motivation for planting that bomb rather he wanted to avenge the death of his fellow Pashtuns killed by Americans. Is that fair game too?

PS: What is the definition of a Terrorist? Who decides an innocent death is a result of a justified War or an act of terrorism?

One thing you might note how many peoples are daying in the war agianst terrorism ? Terrerism is unjustyfying one and its not supportable . Why every one is mixing Islam with terrorism ? Islam strictly prohibited killing a person with out a reason , Islam saying that if some one do that its equal to that he kills all the humanity . You note that how many killed in palastine , who is there terrorist ? Why UN and America not involving that issue ? Why America doing roll over Afganistan ? Why they are not moving towards Israil ? Who gave America the power to roll over the world ? Why they are targetting muslim countries ?

One thing is very clear they have some plans . Me again repeating that islam never never support terrorism and terrorists .

But frankly, I don't much care. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

- Herb Silverman

******************************************

Yes, a rose is a rose is a rose too. And roses have thorns too.

Never mind. We understand if you don't care to know why and how terrorists exists in spite of being an academic and one presumably into research. Ibn Khaldun would wept at the standards of empirical observations and scholarship now. So would Ibn al-Haytham on scientific principles and methods.

Basic questions:

- Terrorists exists?
- What is the defination of terrorists?
- Why do terrorists exists?
- Where do terrorists exist?
- Who are the terrorists?
- When do terrorists exist?
- How do terrorists operate?
- What is the profile of a terrorist?
Etc, etc, etc, etc........

Answer: Terrorists are a deluded lot and are wackos, weirdos, crazies, and psychos who exist for nothing else but to commit murder and mayhem for the hell of it.

Terrorism and terrorists is a delusion which will just go away if there are educated on humanism, human rights, freedom of speech and expression, and the principles of a just society and fair world?

"This is not a defense of terrorism, (or of war in general), but you fail to see terrorism as just another military tactic, like ground assaults or bombing people from airplanes."

Terrorism is a military tactic of the weak. If they actually got stronger, the equivalence you see in carefully targeted drone attacks and random bombings of civilians actually might come closer to reality. That begs the question whether terror tactics against civilians who harbor terrorists is justified?

Often people get the ideas of war and criminal acts confused in their minds and that is the reason the Obama administration has taken this tack with the language. They want to see acts of terror as criminal rather than acts of war. Criminal acts are the acts of individuals and war is a collective act.

I have been told by a child psychologist that if a child is told something 2,000 times, it becomes a belief, e.g., "You are stupid." I understand Muslim children are taught to hate Americans, and it doesn't take long for the child to hear it 2,000 times. This makes the child ripe for becoming a terrorist and the mother proud of her child when he does, even if he blows himself up in the process of killing Americans or other infidels. I think changing someone's belief is almost impossible, so no matter what President Obama says, he will not be believed by the Muslim community.

Ooooppssa.

In .Example, just because Islami Pakistani has a "SUNNi-A-BOMB" today does NOt make them SMART nor Superior to Kafirs! Hence Why Islami's are a Danger To Themselves & US (Kafirs too); Includes the wannabe Islami IRANi's "SHiA-B-BOMB"! Includes the the Hindi/u 'SHIVA" or 'KRISHNA" Atomic Bombs. WHEREFORE:

JEALOUS G-D/iSHVARA/ALLAH Systems need to be A P O C A L Y P T i C i Z E D! Not Pre-Apocalyptic-ised!??

The Battle is JUSTLY Began!

Like there are only 2-Two Religions Systems on S.pace S.hip Earth [ABEic + VEDic; Both G-d/Allah/Ishvara Made or Man-Made Jealousy] that There are only 2-Two types of TERRORIST:

1) RELiGIOUS or 2) NONE-SECT/CULT. Backed.

Question: WHY is the "COALiTION" in IRAQ(?) or in AFGHANISTAN(?) Today? Because Their Society is "SECULARs"? Secret: Alexander the Great died from Afghani Opium Addiction/Overdose; Not Malaria.

Should Humanity Forget NAPOLEAN [pbuh], Who Turned Euro's Monarchy's on their mesmerized Heads? Never!

Maybe Mr. G.W. Bush(s) was the Modern Day NAPOLEAN, or maybe ALEXANDERtg, who like them want turn Theocracy (ISLAMi) on their Heads? Or Is it that Mr. Basket-Slammin-Dunkkin OBAMA, currently, is being the neo-NAPOLIAN against the neo-islami East, West, North & South on bless'th (never born in Sin nor born in curse) S.pace S.hip Earth?

Hint: In 50 Years: OUR grand Kids will Thank US. And They won't have to be American to understand [THIS] the Prophecy; where APOCALYPTIC {HUUMATE] Society takes over S.S. Earth's Helm/Reins from the PRE-Apocalyptic [HUMAN] People & or backward Nations; Only to transform them in Right (Apocalyptic) Thinking & getting them to Justly Judge [SECULARLY via Rule-of-Law; an International Concept].!

So, THiNK GLOBALLY & ACT LOCALLY. No more the other-way around. Like NEW (Kids/religion) comes From OLD (Parents/Religion) never the other way around. Hint: The Universe + here is DYNAMIC never STATIC. Like wise G-D/ALLAH/ISHVARA et al!

If Ye Don't Believe i; then Do the M A T H.

Note: America, India, Russia, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Saudi, Israel, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey etc.. All Have their [Traditional] daily, weekly, monthly, Annual "CRIME STATISTICS" (the WHY's? the WHO's, over WHAT etc.) Soo, LET's COMPARE the WHY's etc..? Yet the Reality of reflecting such "Human WRONGS against Human RIGHTS" is as good as the Truth (opposite Myth) of such Report's or Findings. Hence quality of ones 4th-Estate.

Yet if a "SHiA" 'terrorist' Kills None shia [i.e., SUNNi] other 'terrorist' does that cancel-out the ISLAM factor?

How many JEWs kill other JEWS (Heredi or Secular or moderate) in America or in Israel? How many ISLAMi's Kill Other Islami's instead of Kafirs in America or elswhere?

An important aspect of the never ending “war on terrorism” is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the Middle East. This was the main reason for President Obama’s speech in Cairo. But should the administration attempt to ignore the religious motivation for terrorism in order to please the Muslim community?

While there are no doubt liberal and moderate Muslims who will claim that the terrorist attacks on the western world by deeply religious people from the Islamic faith have absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim religion, the fact is that the majority of the terrorists and the majority of the members of terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not only deeply religious, but claim to be taking the violent actions that they take directly because they believe that it is what their religion instructs them to do.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m7d13-On-Faith-Labels-and-motivations-for-terrorism

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Hi Herb, I have been reading your articles. Apparently, hate is a tremendous
motivator. Look at Helen Thomas, White House correspondent - her true hate came
out at the age of 89... and Mel Gibson, who's hate comes out with alcohol or
just uncontrollable anger. If you don't "hate" it is hard to relate to people
who spend their lives hating.

Is it possible to "undo" the brainwashing children receive from their most
important role models - parents? I have no answers, just questions: why
doesn't the world see that Israelies don't pray to drive all Muslims into the
sea, or rid the world of Muslims? How can Israel meet with Palestinians when
the latter's ultimate goal is to take Israel and rid the land of Jews? I guess
money gives American presidents the right to tell Israel to give land back to
the Palestinians... when Israel greatly needs a buffer zone. Americans didn't
give land back to the Native Americans.

You leave out an important reason for terrorism: it is a response to actual wrongs.

This is not a defense of terrorism, (or of war in general), but you fail to see terrorism as just another military tactic, like ground assaults or bombing people from airplanes.

Is terrorism somehow uniquely unacceptable in a way that, say, carpet bombing is not?

Why is there any requirement to denounce terrorism more than machine-gunning people from helicoptors?

Why don't you write a similar article about using drones, a tactic that separates the perpetrator from the victim by thousands of miles. And then the drone pilot is able to get up from his console and drive home for dinner.