Perhaps I may be inclined to agree with that kind of thinking when responding to a countries unprovoked attack on

a country I live in. In that case yes that country attacked us without provocation....

History will usually provide reasons for provocation. Most just don't absorb or sort these things out for themselves.

You are a laugh a minute Alex. No wonder your poor coworkers avoid discussions with you.

Please UG, if you would like to gain any credibility, then please come up with the following:

An accepted (at least here) definition of:

1. Terror,

2. Terrorist

3. Terrorism

This topic is meant to judge and agree upon if this action was an act of terror or murder.

From there we could debate what other events/people can be classified under 1, 2 or 3.

I do not understand why UG is saying that I am a laugh a minute and have poor co workers.

Please elaborate UG, I would like to understand why you posted that comment.

I know my English is not that good but is it unrealistic to agree upon those definitions first before we continue?

Just asking...

Take care all!

Alex

All things being equal I would rather talk about things I know and people I know instead of vague concepts and news reports from sources I am not entirely confident are accurate.

I've known a couple of terrorists but the one that comes to mind now is Tony Poshepny. Tony Poe or Tony P all the same guy.

There was a time when almost everyone wanted him dead. In the early 1970's the North Vietnamese, the Pathet Lao, the Chinese, and the Americans. I don't think the Thais wanted him dead in 1970 but a few years later they would. Everybody had a hit out on Tony. The American ambassador who was his boss ordered him out of SEA and he said, "Come up and get me you big prick.”

Tony married a hill tribe princess whose dad was a drug lord. He described the situation, “I'm married...she's mean as hell...speaks no language...doesn't smell too good...but she's mine now.”

If there had been 100 Tony's the North Vietnamese leadership would have run away to China.

You all can look up what Tony did but he sure was a terrorist.

He also rescued the Dali Lama from the Chinese. Tony got 5 purple hearts (notice the missing fingers in the photo). He drank a quart of Lao Kao, every morning before emerging from his hut to launch his terror attacks on all and sundry persons in the vicinity.

I didn't get along with the guy but that may have been to do to rank. He had his own army and he thought his own country and I was a clerk that told him I could not drop supplies where he wanted them dropped. Ready made conflict there. If he told the Ambassador to F off imagine what he told an E-5. So I cut the radio connection and unplugged my land line. Nobody calls me those kind of names even a terrorist who throws heads at people.

I went across the street and had a beer and he probably machine gunned 100 peasants out of anger. So is that my fault?

Tony's my hero.

Tony's my hero.

He certainly made any fictional movie hero look like a wimp. I am however glad I was not one of the kids with no ears. Hard to judge. Even being there it's hard to judge. 40 years ago and I still question things.

Tony's my hero.

He certainly made any fictional movie hero look like a wimp. I am however glad I was not one of the kids with no ears. Hard to judge. Even being there it's hard to judge. 40 years ago and I still question things.

They (who is they?) claim Col. Kurtz, Marlon Brando's role in the movie "Apocalypse Now", was loosely based on Tony.

It was always fun to sit around in Madrid in BKK with Tony, Jack Shirley, Pat Landry, Izzy and others sharing some drinks. They were all right characters.

Tony's my hero.

He certainly made any fictional movie hero look like a wimp. I am however glad I was not one of the kids with no ears. Hard to judge. Even being there it's hard to judge. 40 years ago and I still question things.

They (who is they?) claim Col. Kurtz, Marlon Brando's role in the movie "Apocalypse Now", was loosely based on Tony.

It was always fun to sit around in Madrid in BKK with Tony, Jack Shirley, Pat Landry, Izzy and others sharing some drinks. They were all right characters.

I am not a good person to say as I always assumed Apocalypse was modeled after Tony when I watched the movie the first time. I had never heard of the “Heart of Darkness.” And the movie had nothing to do with Africa as I could see.

The movie always freaked me out a bit anyway because it was foreign to my experience in the area at that time. The only character that I found right on was the General at the beginning of the movie.

You should write of your experiences with those men because there are less and less people every day still alive that remember. Tony died in 2003 in the States, (they kicked him out of Thailand) if I remember correctly.

That is why I mentioned it. Terrorists are real people. Tony was always a hero to the hill tribe people he helped in Laos, Thailand and later moved to the States. He headed the community there. The way I heard it he was wounded three times and bleeding to death but would not board a chopper until all of his men were boarded. The hill tribe people never forgot it.

Actually, The Heart of Darkness wasn't "really" about Africa - just a convenient setting. Just as Apocalypse Now wasn't about SE Asia....just another convenient setting.

Actually, The Heart of Darkness wasn't "really" about Africa - just a convenient setting. Just as Apocalypse Now wasn't about SE Asia....just another convenient setting.

I have read three scripts of Apocalypse Now. They are all very different. I have also read the heavily censored texts of the CIA in SEA 1960 to 1970. The CIA reports were written by a guy named Ahern I think (the CIA began to insert people in North Vietnam by swift boat in the early 60's). It came across to me that the people running the CIA were veterans of WW II and had learned almost nothing from the success and failures of the OSS during WW II. Also there is a more complete version of the movie out now with scenes that were not included with the original.

Seems to me that the director changed almost everything for dramatic effect and given the characters he had to work with.

It is interesting to see where the actors don't follow the script or the entire thing gets changed to protect the sensibilities of the audience. The playmate scene was completely changed. Gore is OK but sex still has to be mom and apple pie (shades of Thai Visa).

Terrorism is dealt with in Catch 22 also but in a more lighthearted way.

The "Catch-22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty, isn't really crazy. Hence, pilots who request a mental fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one (i.e. they can never be found "insane"), meaning he must also fly in combat.

I think the answer to the “murder or terrorism” lies in the Catch 22 idea. But it is too early early in the day for me to work it out. I only mention it so others may explain it to me because I am feeling mentally lazy right now.

Actually, The Heart of Darkness wasn't "really" about Africa - just a convenient setting. Just as Apocalypse Now wasn't about SE Asia....just another convenient setting.

I have read three scripts of Apocalypse Now. They are all very different. I have also read the heavily censored texts of the CIA in SEA 1960 to 1970. The CIA reports were written by a guy named Ahern I think (the CIA began to insert people in North Vietnam by swift boat in the early 60's). It came across to me that the people running the CIA were veterans of WW II and had learned almost nothing from the success and failures of the OSS during WW II. Also there is a more complete version of the movie out now with scenes that were not included with the original.

Seems to me that the director changed almost everything for dramatic effect and given the characters he had to work with.

It is interesting to see where the actors don't follow the script or the entire thing gets changed to protect the sensibilities of the audience. The playmate scene was completely changed. Gore is OK but sex still has to be mom and apple pie (shades of Thai Visa).

Terrorism is dealt with in Catch 22 also but in a more lighthearted way.

The "Catch-22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty, isn't really crazy. Hence, pilots who request a mental fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one (i.e. they can never be found "insane"), meaning he must also fly in combat.

I think the answer to the "murder or terrorism" lies in the Catch 22 idea. But it is too early early in the day for me to work it out. I only mention it so others may explain it to me because I am feeling mentally lazy right now.

You would have loved to browse my Father's files - NSA attache' in SE Asia, 1950s-1970s

Actually, The Heart of Darkness wasn't "really" about Africa - just a convenient setting. Just as Apocalypse Now wasn't about SE Asia....just another convenient setting.

I have read three scripts of Apocalypse Now. They are all very different. I have also read the heavily censored texts of the CIA in SEA 1960 to 1970. The CIA reports were written by a guy named Ahern I think (the CIA began to insert people in North Vietnam by swift boat in the early 60's). It came across to me that the people running the CIA were veterans of WW II and had learned almost nothing from the success and failures of the OSS during WW II. Also there is a more complete version of the movie out now with scenes that were not included with the original.

Seems to me that the director changed almost everything for dramatic effect and given the characters he had to work with.

It is interesting to see where the actors don't follow the script or the entire thing gets changed to protect the sensibilities of the audience. The playmate scene was completely changed. Gore is OK but sex still has to be mom and apple pie (shades of Thai Visa).

Terrorism is dealt with in Catch 22 also but in a more lighthearted way.

The "Catch-22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty, isn't really crazy. Hence, pilots who request a mental fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one (i.e. they can never be found "insane"), meaning he must also fly in combat.

I think the answer to the "murder or terrorism" lies in the Catch 22 idea. But it is too early early in the day for me to work it out. I only mention it so others may explain it to me because I am feeling mentally lazy right now.

You would have loved to browse my Father's files - NSA attache' in SE Asia, 1950s-1970s

I would love to. Why don't you publish them?

I guess it is a character flaw that I don't take the terror thing to seriously.

If you read about the wars of independence from colonialism in SEA they are filled with gore. Russia was by principle obliged to support wars of liberation from imperialism and now the US and UK are obliged to support wars of liberation from dictatorships. Democracy will not be the result of either. The USSR supported the first wave of liberation and that resulted in a dictator taking over and now the West is supporting the second wave of liberation and I guess that will result in a theocracy in the middle east and anyone's guess in Asia.

What strikes me is the utter foolishness of governments. Don't they read? Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya?

Closer to home, read about Cambodia and Laos from 1940 to 1970. I'll admit there are still big blocks of text blacked out but the information is all there.

To quote another poster, “If brains were dynamite, our governments wouldn't have enough to blow their hats off.”

It's all been designed and defined for the lethargic masses. "It's perfectly acceptable for us to terrorize, but looked down upon when it's them"

It's all been designed and defined for the lethargic masses. "It's perfectly acceptable for us to terrorize, but looked down upon when it's them"

Exactly, that is why I asked for a definition.

But I am sure they will never post it as they know it will make their position null and void.

And understanding that there is no legal accepted definition of it.

Take care all!

Alex

It's all been designed and defined for the lethargic masses. "It's perfectly acceptable for us to terrorize, but looked down upon when it's them"

Exactly, that is why I asked for a definition.

But I am sure they will never post it as they know it will make their position null and void.

And understanding that there is no legal accepted definition of it.

Take care all!

Alex

What makes it worse Alex, is the same old conventional {and highly subjective} definition that is repeated over and over again - until such becomes real and true. This simple social engineering application has been used forever by all parties, because it works.

It's all been designed and defined for the lethargic masses. "It's perfectly acceptable for us to terrorize, but looked down upon when it's them"

Exactly, that is why I asked for a definition.

But I am sure they will never post it as they know it will make their position null and void.

And understanding that there is no legal accepted definition of it.

Take care all!

Alex

What makes it worse Alex, is the same old conventional {and highly subjective} definition that is repeated over and over again - until such becomes real and true. This simple social engineering application has been used forever by all parties, because it works.

Incredible isn't it. The people that spread this propaganda are true masters on how to influence public perception in their favor. The people that (eventually) believe all this crap will feel too embarrassed to ever admit they were wrong as they fear being called stupid Etc.

But those that would call people stupid for their previous opposite views would be stupid as well.

Create two camps within the peasants and let them fight it out.

The outcome is influenced depending on the content of the news and events on the MSM being fed to them.

Great game to be watched by the elite.

Cheers all!

Alex

UP THE REVOLUTION!!!!

Create two camps within the peasants and let them fight it out.

The outcome is influenced depending on the content of the news and events on the MSM being fed to them.

It is so lucky that AlexLah, zzaa09 and the reptilians are around to explain all this stuff to the great unwashed masses.

Thank you UG for the kind words.

Just looking at these guys that just killed innocent Afghans, tried to make it look as if they were threatened first by planting weapons on them and their only motivation was to just kill someone. These are true act's of terror and according to some this was not just an incident.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

You, Kohee and Chuck really have to ask yourselves if you do not see anything wrong with these kind of act's, committed by obviously sick minded people.

Secondly ask yourself why you (would) call a person that shoots dead a few US soldiers a terrorist.

Let's say I shot to dead a few US soldiers (I do not follow any religion by the way).

What should I be called?

What should I be called if I was a Muslim?

What should I be called if I was a Christian?

Looking forward to your well thought out replies.

Just looking at these guys that just killed innocent Afghans, tried to make it look as if they were threatened first by planting weapons on them and their only motivation was to just kill someone. These are true act's of terror...

I agree these scumbags deserve the death penalty.

Thank you UG for the kind words.

Just looking at these guys that just killed innocent Afghans, tried to make it look as if they were threatened first by planting weapons on them and their only motivation was to just kill someone. These are true act's of terror and according to some this was not just an incident.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

You, Kohee and Chuck really have to ask yourselves if you do not see anything wrong with these kind of act's, committed by obviously sick minded people.

Secondly ask yourself why you (would) call a person that shoots dead a few US soldiers a terrorist.

Let's say I shot to dead a few US soldiers (I do not follow any religion by the way).

What should I be called?

What should I be called if I was a Muslim?

What should I be called if I was a Christian?

Looking forward to your well thought out replies.

I really think I can speak for the three of us that you seem to have indicted...we would probably concur that all such actions by our military are reprehensible. We would very likely applaud any prison sentence they receive if they are found guilty. Since their trial is ongoing as we speak I would probably wait until a verdict is rendered BEFORE I condemn them. You might consider doing the same.

Moving on to your 'what should I be called' questions...

1. If you, as an atheist, should be foolish enough to shoot a few US soldiers I am assuming it would be on the battlefield. You would then be called a dead atheist because other US soldiers would shoot you.

2. A Muslim performing the same foolish action would be called a dead Muslim.

3. A Christian performing the aforementioned act of stupidity would be called...let's hear it again...a dead Christian.

Alex, I know you are desperately trying to woo somebody (anybody) into telling you what the definition of a terrorist is. Keep trying. Somebody might take your bait before long.

Thank you UG for the kind words.

Just looking at these guys that just killed innocent Afghans, tried to make it look as if they were threatened first by planting weapons on them and their only motivation was to just kill someone. These are true act's of terror and according to some this was not just an incident.

http://www.rollingst...l-team-20110327

You, Kohee and Chuck really have to ask yourselves if you do not see anything wrong with these kind of act's, committed by obviously sick minded people.

Secondly ask yourself why you (would) call a person that shoots dead a few US soldiers a terrorist.

Let's say I shot to dead a few US soldiers (I do not follow any religion by the way).

What should I be called?

What should I be called if I was a Muslim?

What should I be called if I was a Christian?

Looking forward to your well thought out replies.

chucky has made it quite clear....if you are say "Praise God" in Arabic, and put their heads in a freezer, it makes you a terrorist.

Thank you UG for the kind words.

Just looking at these guys that just killed innocent Afghans, tried to make it look as if they were threatened first by planting weapons on them and their only motivation was to just kill someone. These are true act's of terror and according to some this was not just an incident.

http://www.rollingst...l-team-20110327

You, Kohee and Chuck really have to ask yourselves if you do not see anything wrong with these kind of act's, committed by obviously sick minded people.

Secondly ask yourself why you (would) call a person that shoots dead a few US soldiers a terrorist.

Let's say I shot to dead a few US soldiers (I do not follow any religion by the way).

What should I be called?

What should I be called if I was a Muslim?

What should I be called if I was a Christian?

Looking forward to your well thought out replies.

I really think I can speak for the three of us that you seem to have indicted...we would probably concur that all such actions by our military are reprehensible. We would very likely applaud any prison sentence they receive if they are found guilty. Since their trial is ongoing as we speak I would probably wait until a verdict is rendered BEFORE I condemn them. You might consider doing the same.

Moving on to your 'what should I be called' questions...

1. If you, as an atheist, should be foolish enough to shoot a few US soldiers I am assuming it would be on the battlefield. You would then be called a dead atheist because other US soldiers would shoot you.

2. A Muslim performing the same foolish action would be called a dead Muslim.

3. A Christian performing the aforementioned act of stupidity would be called...let's hear it again...a dead Christian.

Alex, I know you are desperately trying to woo somebody (anybody) into telling you what the definition of a terrorist is. Keep trying. Somebody might take your bait before long.

Again your definitions are somewhat limited and inaccurate. If what you're saying was correct, there would be no more enemy combatants left in any arena that the US is fighting. This is plainly not true.

With no link to satisfy your demand for links, I nonetheless put forward the idea that there are many enemy combatants of the US that have shot and killed US soldiers but are still running around today.

chucky has made it quite clear....if you are say "Praise God" in Arabic, and put their heads in a freezer, it makes you a terrorist.

Only if you were the one who killed them for religion in the first place.

chucky has made it quite clear....if you are say "Praise God" in Arabic, and put their heads in a freezer, it makes you a terrorist.

Only if you were the one who killed them for religion in the first place.

killing Muslims for their religion makes them to terrorists?

the dead ones i mean, dead terrorists.

Islamic terrorists kill more peaceful Muslims than "Infidels".

DEFINED: A body or individual that promotes fear and "terror".

Islamic terrorists kill more peaceful Muslims than "Infidels".

And the "infidels" do they kill more Muslims or do they kill more other "infidels"?

There goes the neighborhood.

We now have bangkokeddy here to flood us with Palestinian links and bore us with his rhetoric.

I will largely ignore him, ala Harcourt, but will have to wade through his trolls to see if there is any meat in his arguments. I have found none so far and will likely not be able to find any in the future.

will have to wade through his trolls to see if there is any meat in his arguments. I have found none so far and will likely not be able to find any in the future.

That's for sure!

DEFINED: A body or individual that promotes fear and "terror".

I find that definition mostly acceptable. Though one may have a righteous cause and still promote fear, or at least they'd like to wish so. Even I would like to promote fear sometimes, though I don't consider myself a terrorist . I'd just like to keep that last contractor I hired a little bit off guard.