Terrorism

[metu]

Well handled Incubus. I'm glad you took my argument in stride. Keep up the progress; let's expand this discussion.

I'm pretty sure that the Abu G'raeb story was broken by a soldier with a camera who sent the pictures to a New Yorker collumnist. I'm pretty sure I saw the author of the original story on c-span claiming exactly that.

Kudos for Iridium for taking a very welcome step two.

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

I was reflecting recently on the similarities between al Q'aeda and the KKK: built on propaganda, horrific attack ('Bama for KKK), splintered cells, more dangerous than ever, recruiting more than ever, locals turning a blind eye, underground networks.

Any thoughts?

 

[Kenneth R.]

the difference being that mentioning al Q'aeda gets you on national television and prompts an investigation, whereas i doubt the government even cares about the KKK these days. unfortunate that we are so concerned with foreign terrorism and threats that we can't even deal with those of an internal nature.

 

[metu]

Those two guys who blew up the Federal Building in OK were on the fringes of two different groups. They were also completely under the radar.

 

[Lord SteveO]

I don't think the problem is completely from Al Q'aeda anymore.
The bommings in London were carried out by people claiming to be doing it in the name of Islam but there's no evidence they ever met someone from the organisation.
I suspect what we will see now is more attacks by newer younger groups, claiming the same reasons etc but i truth only copying what has gone before.
Saying you are linked to Al Q'aeda gets you media coverage, you don't even have to be linked to the real network but you'll still get the over-hyping from the media etc.

 

[infoterror]

Terrorism is the little guy hitting out at the big guy.

We should know, in America; it was how we got our "freedom."

 

[Silver Incubus]

Finally, something that says everything I have said and more!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zUht6cLkMc&search=loose change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-guQaYgrWqI&search=loose change

 

[Neith]

Terrorism is the little guy hitting out at the big guy.

Exactly. It's actually quite bizarre if one is to look at the fact that the word 'Terrorist' was allegedly penned by the Germans in WW2 to describe the French Resistence. I say bizarre because how many people these days refer to the resistence as terrorists? Yet they were trying to defend themselves, as are those we often call terrorists in the Middle East. So what really is the difference? The only difference that I see is that it suits the West to categorize them as terrorists in a wholly different perspective to the way the resistence were viewed in order to justify what they do. I wonder if the majority of people know this, and if they do or do not, does it affect their opinions on these 'modern terrorists'?

 

[MURAI]

Funny how the view of terrorism is completely different if you see them in different angles. I'd say terrorism should not be classed as an act of good or evil but just a fuse for revolution and warfare.

9/11 obviously finally woke up the masses in the U.S about how the Middle East never liked them. After U.S has become the sole superpower after winning World Wars I and II and the Cold War they have done what they have pleased. They have spread their empire to other countries under the banner of "good" to defend democracy and capitalism. They intervened countless times in political affairs in countries to fight off the
evils of fascist forces like in Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea etc but they have done nothing but make things worse. Back to the terrorist topic, now Al-Quaeda are perceived as the modern, evil terrorist organization on the side of the west. Al-Quaeda themselves view their act as loyalty under god and the Judeo-Christian forces like the U.S in the world are the ones who are evil. Yes, the States have done things to recieve hatred but I personally think it was an act which just worsened their conditions because the U.S are going to hit the Middle East back even stronger. Just look at Iraq now and what they're planning to do to Iran.

Around 1850s in Japan, Western powers like the U.S and Britan forced the Tokugawa government of Japan to open trade with them and cancel their seclusion policy with the intention of making Japan a colony like they forced China then. The Tokugawa knew they were no match against Western powers so they canceled the seclusion policy to open the country. Japan was in an mass uproar and the samurai class started adapting anti-foreigner, Emperor worship idealogies. All of the samurai class adopted the anti-foreigner idealogies but to put it simply the samurais split themselves to two either siding with the Tokugawa regime or against them. Most of those against the regime carried terrorist acts against the regime and foreigners (like bombing foreign ambassies built by the Tokugawa) and it was considered acts of honor. The revolutionary samurais overthrew the Tokugawa and created a new government centralized around the Emperor. Therefore, terrorist acts against the Tokugawa regime were considered just for the country. But let's say the Tokugawa regime managed to crush their opposition then obviously those terrorist acts would be considered just as evil acts. As Varg of Burzum put it in an interview, whoever is right is whoever is authority and/or the majority. So, whoever wins in war is good and the loser was completely wrong and has to pay the war crime which is a dumb concept if you think about it. If miraculously after Japan and Germany persisted and won World War II even after the Hiroshima bombing attack. Now, Jews would be wiped out for being evil and the States would have to pay Japan for the atomic bombing as "crimes against humanity".

One can say terrorist acts of Japan helped formed their new modern, centralized Meiji government by overthrowing the earlier Tokugawa regime that still kept Japan like a feudal country. Let's say Al-Quaeda were to successfully crush America then 9/11 would be glorified as an act of justice.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That was an excellent post Murai. I just wanted to comment on the part where you said that you personally think 911 was an act which just worsened conditions for the Arabs, rather than helping their cause.

What everyone should always ask themselves in this kind of situation is "who benefits?" As Murai pointed out, the chief beneficiaries of 911 were not the Muslims. In fact it was the members of the US government who were looking for an excuse to bomb Iraq, as they had already written before 911, in a report. The report by the Project for the New American Century (members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) stated that a "Pearl Harbor event" was required before they could attack Iraq. Is that not an obvious reason to suspect them of having facilitated the attack?

 

[MURAI]

That was an excellent post Murai. I just wanted to comment on the part where you said that you personally think 911 was an act which just worsened conditions for the Arabs, rather than helping their cause.

What everyone should always ask themselves in this kind of situation is "who benefits?" As Murai pointed out, the chief beneficiaries of 911 were not the Muslims. In fact it was the members of the US government who were looking for an excuse to bomb Iraq, as they had already written before 911, in a report. The report by the Project for the New American Century (members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) stated that a "Pearl Harbor event" was required before they could attack Iraq. Is that not an obvious reason to suspect them of having facilitated the attack?

Kind of stupid excuse the U.S governement created to attack Iraq on the basis of having connections with Al-Quaeda and having weapons of mass destruction. You probably heard of how America already knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before hand but they let Japan do it anyway so they have a good explanation to start war with them.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Kind of stupid excuse the U.S governement created to attack Iraq on the basis of having connections with Al-Quaeda and having weapons of mass destruction. You probably heard of how America already knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before hand but they let Japan do it anyway so they have a good explanation to start war with them.

Yeah that's just it. They don't organise every detail of these events, they just facilitate them. They allow the people that they know want to do the attack the freedom to do that, by not trying to stop them.
The media never tells you the truth about the Columbine school massacre, and in fact I've heard them actually say the kids who did it were neo-nazis. This was not a terrorist attack, but it does show you how the truth gets trodden on to make a political point and the real culprits are the opposite of who the media says they are. http://judicial-inc.biz/columbine_killers.htm

And Michael Moore used the incident as an excuse to build a case for gun control. Because a school massacre is the perfect pretext for gun control laws, as the British government practiced when they banned hand guns as a result of a similar incident by the paedophile (with friends in high places) Hamilton.

 

[Neith]

Kind of stupid excuse the U.S governement created to attack Iraq on the basis of having connections with Al-Quaeda and having weapons of mass destruction. You probably heard of how America already knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before hand but they let Japan do it anyway so they have a good explanation to start war with them.

Not sure if that has already been mentioned in the thread.
This is allegedly the same with the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the pentagon was apparently one of their own planes. We'll probably never find out the truth, just as we never have with any of the major incidents.

 

[Neith]

I found this quite shocking when I read the figures.
They really speak for themselves, but it concerns the amount of compensation an American gets if a family mamber is killed in action, compared to the amount of compensation that families received for the death of a family member in the 9/11 attacks.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_rush_limbaugh.htm

Granted, it is debatable if they are exactly the right figures, but it seems to be accepted that they are very near the true figures.