No ceasefire until Sickos are terminated.

[washingtonyrk]

d-rock,

Your post is a perfect exmaple of why the USA has never been as unpopular with other countries as it is now.

Who are the USA to decide the ''UN is useless''?

Who is the USA to decide that innocent civilians should die in pursuit of some so called greater common good?

Think it doesn't matter that the rest of the world is coming to hate the military bullyboy USA?

Your economy is billions upon billions of dollars in debt and, if you lose control of the world's oil supply, it will collapse.

That's why you're riding roughshod over Muslim sentiment by stationing oil companies and military airbases on the soil of any mercenary non-democracy like Saudi Arabia wthat will have you.

It can't last, the Middle East is sick of the USA, Europe is sick of the USA, and China is sick of the USA - in fact, once Bush's poodle Blair stands down and is replaced by the anti-USA Gordon brown, you'll have no friend left, not in Europe anyway.

Think that doens't matter?

Wait until they all stand up to you over your protectionist trade policies and start imposing economic sanctions on you.

The USA ecomoy is heading for depression (not recession, depression) and no one around the world will be lifting a finger to help you out.

That's the legacy Bush will leave you - economic ruin, the hatred of the rest of the world, and more terrorists than ever plotting to wreak devastation on your homeland.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

Is Turkey Passively 'Bombing' Lebanon?

Lebanon Analysis.

And is USA passively involved in the bombing?
dd

 

[KittyKat]

georges,

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Firstly, let me say I have had that drummed into me over the past few years day in, day out.

What is terrorism, anyway?

Trying to bend people to your will by the means of terrifying violence, perhaps?

Bit like ''Shock And Awe'' in Iraq in 2003, perhaps?

Did you know that the UN have tried to come up with a definition of a terrorist state but couldn't find a definition which wouldn't include the USA, Israel and, more recently, Britain?

Actually there are a number of definitions of Terrorism, and have been over the years, it's constantly changing -

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

Taken from - Here

I have a lot of Schmid's work, and to me, that definition is very valid. It is also the defintion most widely accepted now (in the academic community at least, although it has been modified over the last few years). I know that Israel, the US and Britain have been labelled 'terrorist states' at one point, but honestly, would you put them in same category as the academic definition coined by Schmid?! To do so would simply ignore all the factors that labels terrorism, terrorism.

But are the USA, Britain and Israel, all of who have pursued policies in full and certain knowledge that civilians will die as a result, any better?

Terrorism will never be defeated by violence - the world just isn't that simple.

I think no matter which way you paint it, although civilians died, they were not specific targets. USA, Israel, Britain, do not kill civilians deliberately to create a state of fear. To do so would risk international condemnation.

And finally, no, terrorism will never be defeated by violence. Violence breeds violence, but at the end of the day violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

Taken from - Here

I have a lot of Schmid's work, and to me, that definition is very valid. It is also the defintion most widely accepted now (in the academic community at least, although it has been modified over the last few years). I know that Israel, the US and Britain have been labelled 'terrorist states' at one point, but honestly, would you put them in same category as the academic definition coined by Schmid?! To do so would simply ignore all the factors that labels terrorism, terrorism.

Thank You Kitty. It is always a pleasure to read through your posts, whether I agree or disagree. They always are well researched & rational. I think doc is very lucky, as lucky as I am with pd by my side.

I have taken the liberty of embolding & underlining a few of the sentences of your post. If gone through you may find that clandestine is the catch word of the entire definition.

So if, any individual, group or state actors, commits those same act openly, after announcing the fact, he/they are going to commit it against so and so, will not be treated as "terrorism".

This in my my mind is a duplicity. This provides a bolthole to certain section of similar criminals (individual, group or state actors) who are bold and powrerful enough to say and commit the similar acts of terror in a bigger scale.

I think no matter which way you paint it, although civilians died, they were not specific targets. USA, Israel, Britain, do not kill civilians deliberately to create a state of fear. To do so would risk international condemnation.

I desisted from highlighting because the entire paragraph above required to be highlighted.

The only answer I could come up with. "Oh, yeah! When it bothered us about international condemnation? We were not bothered when we were proved an out-right liar regarding Iraq."

And finally, no, terrorism will never be defeated by violence. Violence breeds violence, but at the end of the day violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

So true that it should become an axiom. But friend we make violence a necessary evil, it is not required if you are not irrational and/or power-hungry.

:bowdown: Kitty.
dd

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

further :2 cents:
dd

 

[FullMoonWolf]

Israel cries..."Unfair!"
Gimme a fuckin' break...and like they don't use weapons from the United States? ALL these huge nations traffic weapons back & forth for a price. What's the difference?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_russia_missiles_1

 

[Torre82]

I for one, am going to masturbate on the subject for a while.. then I'll wipe my views off the monitor.

a..s..k..jo..lene.. dot com.

isra..eli..por..nstar..s. ENTER.

Huh. :click:
Mmm. Shalom, hotness.

 

[4G63]

I read that Hezbollah is helping to rebuild Lebanon.

 

[georges]

The Hezbollah is a terrorist group like the Hamas, it hsoud have been eradicated so then there wouldn't have been troubles

 

[4G63]

The Hezbollah is a terrorist group like the Hamas, it hsoud have been eradicated so then there wouldn't have been troubles

Then go and do it, join the Army.

 

[georges]

Then go and do it, join the Army.

I told you Hamas and Hezbollah have not to be trusted.

 

[om3ga]

I for one, am going to masturbate on the subject for a while.. then I'll wipe my views off the monitor.

a..s..k..jo..lene.. dot com.

isra..eli..por..nstar..s. ENTER.

Huh. :click:
Mmm. Shalom, hotness.

Hmm.......I think you mean Nilli Willis....

[edit] apologies for the levity on such a serious thread, but I'm currently testing my access...