Finally something that we can all agree on!

Please all of you, can we define a terrorist and/or terrorism please.

why should we?

Because while wildly innaccurate definitions exists, we can not properly debate if the killing of some US soldiers in Frankfurt was terrorism or not.

Some people have the ridiculous notion that a murderer who puts the victims head in a freezer is a terrorist!

U.S. hostage's head found in freezer

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 Posted: 2149 GMT (0549 HKT)

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (CNN) -- The head of slain American hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr., who was kidnapped and beheaded in Saudi Arabia last month, has been found in a freezer, a Saudi Interior Ministry official said.

Two suspected al Qaeda militants were killed during raids, the official added Wednesday.

Security forces found the head and a cache of weapons in a raid on a villa Tuesday night and it was positively identified Wednesday morning.

Rest of story here: http://edition.cnn.c...nson/index.html

Or this one... http://en.wikipedia....ll_Johnson,_Jr.

I wonder why?

"2. ......... Oh, and if he saws off my head and stores it in the freezer compartment in his kitchen, that would definitely make it an act of terrorism."

"If you will study the three scenarios in my post, you will find what I think differentiates a murderer from a terrorist killer. "

So...... sawing of the head and storing it the freezer definitely makes it an act of terrorism, according to chucky.

Even if an Al Qaeda member did it, then it is an act of murder committed by a terrorist.

Are all acts performed by terrosrists to ever in the future be regarded as terrorist acts?..... by chucky's reasoning, yes. If a bona fide terrorist was to play Beethoven from a ghetto blaster before suicide bombing a shopping centre, henceforth all criminals that play beethoven are not just criminals but terrorists.

So Daniel Pearl's murderer was not a terrorist because he sawed his head off.

Please all of you, can we define a terrorist and/or terrorism please.

why should we?

Because while wildly innaccurate definitions exists, we can not properly debate if the killing of some US soldiers in Frankfurt was terrorism or not.

Some people have the ridiculous notion that a murderer who puts the victims head in a freezer is a terrorist!

i keep most (not all) heads of my victims in a freezer. my wife started complaining long time ago that there is hardly any space for the goodies she asks our european friends to take to Thailand.

i keep most (not all) heads of my victims in a freezer. my wife started complaining long time ago that there is hardly any space for the goodies she asks our european friends to take to Thailand.

Go back to your..."yada, yada, yada...blah, blah, blah" posts.

They are much more intelligent than your latest one.

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

So Daniel Pearl's murderer was not a terrorist because he sawed his head off.

Please refresh my memory, was he sort of the first foreigner that was decapitated of which a clip of it appeared on the net?

Filming it and spreading the clip over the web was in my opinion done to istigate fear and could therefore be classified as an act of terror.

One of the worst beheadings I have seen was this police guy in Mexico where they on purpose slowed the process of cutting his head off and using a not too sharp knife and saying to the guy (that was cutting) to do it slowly.

Then announcing On (I think it was theync.com) that there would be a clip posted soon as an example what could happen with someone that decided to join the fight against one of these drug cartels before publishing the clip.

As HC said (and I asked for) agreeing on a definition of what makes a terrorist and what are act's of terror should be debated and agreed upon first.

Cheers all!

Alex

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

i keep most (not all) heads of my victims in a freezer. my wife started complaining long time ago that there is hardly any space for the goodies she asks our european friends to take to Thailand.

Go back to your..."yada, yada, yada...blah, blah, blah" posts.

They are much more intelligent than your latest one.

are you having a bad hair day? did the Mrs order you to sleep in the 30m² dog kennel with the three retrievers because you talk without being asked by a grown-up?

i keep most (not all) heads of my victims in a freezer. my wife started complaining long time ago that there is hardly any space for the goodies she asks our european friends to take to Thailand.

Go back to your..."yada, yada, yada...blah, blah, blah" posts.

They are much more intelligent than your latest one.

More humorous as well.

i keep most (not all) heads of my victims in a freezer. my wife started complaining long time ago that there is hardly any space for the goodies she asks our european friends to take to Thailand.

Go back to your..."yada, yada, yada...blah, blah, blah" posts.

They are much more intelligent than your latest one.

are you having a bad hair day? did the Mrs order you to sleep in the 30m² dog kennel with the three retrievers because you talk without being asked by a grown-up?

I just can't see chucky with retrievers. A chihuahua maybe.

i keep most (not all) heads of my victims in a freezer. my wife started complaining long time ago that there is hardly any space for the goodies she asks our european friends to take to Thailand.

Go back to your..."yada, yada, yada...blah, blah, blah" posts.

They are much more intelligent than your latest one.

are you having a bad hair day? did the Mrs order you to sleep in the 30m² dog kennel with the three retrievers because you talk without being asked by a grown-up?

Nope. How's that 24 million baht house coming along???

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

So now we're discussing Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama - terrorists sans egale.

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

You're wife ought to lighten up on you Herr Naam. She thinks your English isn't up to par, well "behest" isn't common language and you used it absolutely correctly.

Anyhow, I was goin to PM you but maybe we can do it here. If you're going to divorce based on her extravagant spending on an ansestral home, could you put in a good word for me? Maybe I can catch her on the rebound.

My wife now claims she told me "you should have bought Gold when I told you". Of course no conversation ever took place. I can't even keep track of all the things I should have bought "because I told you". I'd have have to have been a Billionaire. Of course she only points out the stuff that went up, which I'm told is a woman's perogative.

Why do need them again?

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

Well, now that you mention it, I can't recall many politicians who wouldn't be better off dead. We need more hookers and less politicians and generals .

It still comes down to who takes the first swing. After the fight, battle or war begins then all bets are off.

And, I really don't have a problem with murder, but the murderer should also understand that he too should lose his life for committing the crime of killing another. But, an individual murder is a lot different than a war between two countries. There is ALWAYS going to be collateral damage once a war has begun.

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

Well, now that you mention it, I can't recall many politicians who wouldn't be better off dead. We need more hookers and less politicians and generals .

It still comes down to who takes the first swing. After the fight, battle or war begins then all bets are off.

And, I really don't have a problem with murder, but the murderer should also understand that he too should lose his life for committing the crime of killing another. But, an individual murder is a lot different than a war between two countries. There is ALWAYS going to be collateral damage once a war has begun.

Again I am asking for a global accepted definition of act's of terror and what exactly makes someone a terrorist.

Your quote: There is ALWAYS going to be collateral damage once a war has begun.

Is pointless without defining war and including a list of countries that officially declared war to another country for whatever reasons.

I see you are well programmend to call killing innocent people collatoral damage.

Are you really outside of the box?

Alex

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

You're wife ought to lighten up on you Herr Naam. She thinks your English isn't up to par, well "behest" isn't common language and you used it absolutely correctly.

Anyhow, I was goin to PM you but maybe we can do it here. If you're going to divorce based on her extravagant spending on an ansestral home, could you put in a good word for me? Maybe I can catch her on the rebound.

My wife now claims she told me "you should have bought Gold when I told you". Of course no conversation ever took place. I can't even keep track of all the things I should have bought "because I told you". I'd have have to have been a Billionaire. Of course she only points out the stuff that went up, which I'm told is a woman's perogative.

Why do need them again?

Not to be nit-picky but informative (it's sad when mistakes are perpetuated)....but it's "at" someone's behest.

I don't think putting a category name on the killer means a thing. He intentionally went out to kill someone and therefore is a murderer. It doesn't matter what motive he had for his attack. I don't think it even matters that he had just cause or not. He is still a murderer and should be dealt with as such. As far as I am concerned all murderers need to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to prevent them from ever doing it again... end of story.

does that also apply to politicians on who's behest and based on lies a lot of people are murdered by starting wars?

Well, now that you mention it, I can't recall many politicians who wouldn't be better off dead. We need more hookers and less politicians and generals .

It still comes down to who takes the first swing. After the fight, battle or war begins then all bets are off.

And, I really don't have a problem with murder, but the murderer should also understand that he too should lose his life for committing the crime of killing another. But, an individual murder is a lot different than a war between two countries. There is ALWAYS going to be collateral damage once a war has begun.

Again I am asking for a global accepted definition of act's of terror and what exactly makes someone a terrorist.

Your quote: There is ALWAYS going to be collateral damage once a war has begun.

Is pointless without defining war and including a list of countries that officially declared war to another country for whatever reasons.

I see you are well programmend to call killing innocent people collatoral damage.

Are you really outside of the box?

Alex

Alex, I don't feel there is any need for war with weapons. But, if a country keeps preaching hatred and recommends their citizens kill the citizens of another country, and then some of their citizens DO commit murder under the guise of some Jihad, then something has to be done about it. What would you have expected the USA to do after 9-11? The USA had ALREADY put up with some terrorist bombings and attacks. 9-11 was just the final straw.

In EVERY war there is going to be innocent people killed. Most often it is JUST the innocent people who get killed. I highly doubt if the every day common citizens of Germany agreed with starting the Second World War. When Hitler attacked Poland and then the rest of Europe should the western allies just stood around wringing their hands? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and the rest of South East Asia should the USA have sat on their hands? In a war, very few of the generals and politicians EVER get killed. It is ALWAYS the innocent people. Even most soldiers are innocent. They are just used as cannon fodder for the generals to play their war games.

The REAL wars are the ones done with commerce. Right now I believe China is winning that war with the USA.

Well, now that you mention it, I can't recall many politicians who wouldn't be better off dead. We need more hookers and less politicians and generals

we should form a political party Ian!

But, if a country keeps preaching hatred and recommends their citizens kill the citizens of another country, and then some of their citizens DO commit murder under the guise of some Jihad, then something has to be done about it. What would you have expected the USA to do after 9-11? The USA had ALREADY put up with some terrorist bombings and attacks. 9-11 was just the final straw.

In EVERY war there is going to be innocent people killed. Most often it is JUST the innocent people who get killed. I highly doubt if the every day common citizens of Germany agreed with starting the Second World War. When Hitler attacked Poland and then the rest of Europe should the western allies just stood around wringing their hands? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and the rest of South East Asia should the USA have sat on their hands? In a war, very few of the generals and politicians EVER get killed. It is ALWAYS the innocent people. Even most soldiers are innocent. They are just used as cannon fodder for the generals to play their war games.

The REAL wars are the ones done with commerce. Right now I believe China is winning that war with the USA.

Ian,

In your first paragraph you mention a hate based attack.....But it was loose in a way because 15 of the 19 that are claimed to have committed that act of terrorist held Saudi citizenship....I have not seen any moves against Saudi since.

As for what should have been done after 9-11 well....It may have been to take a good look at it & decide first off if it was backlash for things we as a country were doing overseas....Second of course security would need to be beefed up & could have been easily in comparison to the other route we took. To this day security in the USA sucks & is infantile.

Yes the TSA & Dept of homeland security does a good show to make the lives of citizens traveling hell. But you would be shocked at how easy it is to enter from International trips...just as I do & have done many times since 9-11

We come in with large metal suitcases from countries that have poor exit security & the customs folks each time ask me...Anything to declare? I say nope & away I go.

Quite the opposite I would think to what should be done. Instead of frisking & going through all the US citizens as they leave concentrate on what is arriving as that is where the problem starts

Your second paragraph lists unprovoked attacks that of course deserved a reaction as they were clearly made by countries.

It was definable.

The first paragraph is not & should not have caused the reaction it got with the following billions in cost & thousand of lives lost.

As a result it has helped bankrupt a country just as OBL said it would & wasted lives. Because as of today we are no closer to any resolution on that front. We have only lost mega dollars, lives & constitutional rights as US citizens.

All of the above is of course just my opinion

Very good post, flying. I agree entirely. War, terrorism and all the other hatred topics is so complex that there is no one real solution, or even any one group to blame. All the reasons for it are so entwined I wouldn't even know where to start. It could even start way back when we were children and someone gets their feelings hurt. Then, as adults faced with similar situations, they tend to over react before thinking of the consequences.

There is no question in my mind that the US should not have been in Vietnam, nor should the French have before them. Had the Allies AFTER the FIRST world war been more lenient with the German people then Hitler never would have risen to power. The US shouldn't have backed evil dictators in many other countries, but did so because someone, or group of wealthy people, decided they wanted to exploit that country's resources at minimal cost to themselves. Saddam Hussein was only one such example.

I don't want to get into a long debate over who was right or who was wrong. There is enough evidence to prove there some of each.

There is no question in my mind that the US should not have been in Vietnam, nor should the French have before them. Had the Allies AFTER the FIRST world war been more lenient with the German people then Hitler never would have risen to power. The US shouldn't have backed evil dictators in many other countries, but did so because someone, or group of wealthy people, decided they wanted to exploit that country's resources at minimal cost to themselves. Saddam Hussein was only one such example.

Agreed Ian

you know with VietNam & policing actions elsewhere that followed I agree none should have been there as it was never defined.

As such it is open ended & later the only real reason for staying becomes a case of saving face or proving a point if you like.

Same with what you said about backing certain dogs/propping up known repressive regimes just because some group needs them to do some profit resulting deed.

In the end it always comes back to bite the country providing the force.

But ultimately as you said it has more to do with someone or group who ultimately profits from it all.

Meanwhile it is quite destructive to the economy of the country doing the work/misguided deed.

The fact that some skirmish costs a country 700 million a day means

A counties economy loses that money which could have been used to build that countries infrastructure providing jobs which would directly recycle that money many more times into the same economy or many other good tasks.

In your first paragraph you mention a hate based attack.....But it was loose in a way because 15 of the 19 that are claimed to have committed that act of terrorist held Saudi citizenship....I have not seen any moves against Saudi since.

That's not because of oil but because the citizenship of the hijackers wasn't important. They weren't acting on behalf on any one country. But everyone already knew that.

If you have the right people in power in the under-developed country.

But usually you do not.

Most under-developed countries are that way, and remain that way, because the people in power are 'powerful'. And repress the remainder of the population, keeping them to minimum educational standards, keeping them in poverty and without adequate communication facilities, so that they (the powerful) retain that power for themselves and their kith and kin.

I have yet to see an altruistic dictator / under-developed country leader. Democracy does not exist in such conditions and cannot be imposed. It has to be taught and absorbed before it will flower. And the powerful will use any means to ensure this does not happen.

Even in 'democratic' countries people are losing their voice. Look at Europe - now governed by decree from Brussels, not even from the 'elected' European Parliament, where corruption is alive and well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8393797/European-Parliament-member-resigns-over-cash-for-laws-scandal.html

Nigel did a good job at the EU some time ago.

Absolutely magnificent and hilarious but it makes you think and realise what clowns most of them are. But hey, they have the power to decide what is good for the peasants which basically means stuffing their own pockets.

The reason I asked for the definition of terrorists and terrorism, is that once you define it you would have no other choiche to classify many of the violent events and interventions that happened around the world to be act's of terror.

This whole fake war on terror provides many jobs in the US and around the world and contributes to their GDP.

Whenever I discuss this (Off topic) with my Amercan higher management friends and show examples they just say they do not know about these issue's I raised.

Talking about ignorance....

Those that think the shooting of some US soldiers was an act of terror should think twice.

Those that support an illegal invasion of a country and call those that resist it terrorist, should think thrice.

Those that agree emptiying a magazize of bullets into a 13 year old girl is justified and OK, should really be locked up and the key thrown away.

That is my opinion.

Alex

Whenever I discuss this (Off topic) with my Amercan higher management friends and show examples they just say they do not know about these issue's I raised.

Talking about ignorance....

Wake up. They are just trying to avoid arguing with you about your silly "theories". They are not as "ignorant" as you would like to believe.

That's not because of oil but because the citizenship of the hijackers wasn't important. They weren't acting on behalf on any one country. But everyone already knew that.

Exactly my point

So, as I have already queried but received no reply, how many civilians have the current coalition against Libya killed, in their mission to 'protect civilians'?

I note that the majority of munitions have been directed against the Tripoli area, where there are mostly Gaddafi supporters (therefore I would assume less attacks on civilians by Gaddafi) and only a few in the Adj'Dabiya area, where the Gaddafi forces are moving on Benghazi. Nothing seems to be happening in Misurata, where there is hand-to-hand fighting in the streets and support weaponry with Libyan Army troops. So I would asume that civilians are at severe risk here.

The targetting by the US/UK/French forces does not accord with their mission statement. All should be withdrawn / replaced.