US yet again under Terrorism Threat?!

[Charlotte]

I listen to 'News' just recent. And I watch about Barack Obama talking about this NationalJournal.com - Yemen Packages Expose Gaps in Air Cargo Screening - Friday, October 29, 2010 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/yemen-packages-expose-gaps-in-air-cargo-screening-20101029)

So it's about United States receiving yet another threat from terrorist (maybe Al-Qaeda or others) Go search on google, you can find more about this News beside the link that I provided.

So to all my friends here, please stay safe. Although you're on your own soil, it's still dangerous, who know the bomb might come to your house through FedEx's packages.

If you still scare of this threat (not really a threat cause it's does happen), come to my country, it safe here. :P jk jk jk

[WobbleSock]

I don't like talking about Terrorism because in my opinion Terrorism shouldn't be a word; One mans "Terrorist" is another mans "Freedom Fighter".

During the Apartheid regime of South Africa, Nelson Mandela was labelled as a Terrorist by the Apartheid Government and most of the world accepted that. Now look at us, would any of us be as willing to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist now?

Its a very touchy subject, from the view of some of the muslims Al Qaeda is seen as a movement to stop America and their imperialistic goals.

[Jokersvirus]

Yemen doesnt like the US one bit, they are supporters of Al Qaeda, and OBL has family and very powerful friends there so this doesnt surprise me. This is the interesting thing about terrorist, no matter what federal Mandates are put in place by the US they will always find some break in the chain and attack it. Its always interesting to see what they come up with. Due to this situation within a week, or less, we should have some more federal mandates or an HSPD, Homeland Security Presidential Directive to fix this situation if not ehh Im not really sure.

off topic:Al Qaeda is nothing more than thugs with a leader who is upset because of what happened during the failed Russian war in the 80s. You are right about "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter," but the problem is only people who see Al Qaeda as a freedom fighter are those who are apart of it, those who support them, etc etc. Personal..

[LiNuX]

US is always under threat of an attack. The level keeps going up and down from Orange to yellow. And I think this was the 12th attempt/incident since 9/11.


Its a very touchy subject, from the view of some of the muslims Al Qaeda is seen as a movement to stop America and their imperialistic goals.

I doubt most of it has anything to do with religion. They are just using religion as an excuse for their goals which is pathetic. It's not just them, many have done it throughout history, even the US did during the Philippines thing a few decades ago.

[jango]

I don't like talking about Terrorism because in my opinion Terrorism shouldn't be a word; One mans "Terrorist" is another mans "Freedom Fighter".

I agree wholeheartedly .. it's a question of perspective.

[EpsilonX]

I don't like talking about Terrorism because in my opinion Terrorism shouldn't be a word; One mans "Terrorist" is another mans "Freedom Fighter".

During the Apartheid regime of South Africa, Nelson Mandela was labelled as a Terrorist by the Apartheid Government and most of the world accepted that. Now look at us, would any of us be as willing to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist now?

Its a very touchy subject, from the view of some of the muslims Al Qaeda is seen as a movement to stop America and their imperialistic goals.

Terrorism is, according to wikipedia, the use of terror as a means of coercion. Usually politically charged. Attacking the world trade center with suicide bombers is terrorism from anybody's point of view, for example

[LiNuX]

Terrorism is, according to wikipedia, the use of terror as a means of coercion. Usually politically charged. Attacking the world trade center with suicide bombers is terrorism from anybody's point of view, for example

Not in anybody's PoV. I'm sure you saw videos of people shooting their rifles in the air when this happened along with burning the flag. For them it was a victory of their freedom (or something equivalent).

So I'd change that to a majority of the public's point of view.

[Jokersvirus]

Terrorism is, according to wikipedia, the use of terror as a means of coercion. Usually politically charged. Attacking the world trade center with suicide bombers is terrorism from anybody's point of view, for example


the use of terror in your definition is vague. one state might definition the act of terror different than another. For example, In my state it is an act of terror to open fire in a crowd of people.


Its better to say use of force or threat of force against persons, property, or to intimidate a government for political or social objectives.

[EpsilonX]

Like I said, I went on wikipedia for it. In my Criminal Justice class, the teacher said terrorism is usually crimes committed for a political reason. The planes were crashed to send a message to the US about our government.

Now I only briefly skimmed that article...

[LiNuX]

the teacher said terrorism is usually crimes committed for a political reason.

Yeah, that's the general meaning of it. Otherwise it would be just organized crime because organized crime syndicates don't have any political goals. They actually like government because the more things the government make illegal, the better their business is.

[Jokersvirus]

Ehh, there isnt always a political reason behind it. IE it can be argued that OBL committed 9/11 because of the Russian invasion back in the 80s and how the Sandi government turned to the US for help not OBL and his "Holy warriors."

Another thing is Jihad jane and Jamie, since the cartoonist made fun of Muhammad or Allah they tried to kill him, there isnt anything political there just kill them for making fun of their god.

[EpsilonX]

thus the usually. But isn't the general opinion that of them doing it in opposition to america's freedoms?

[jango]

thus the usually. But isn't the general opinion that of them doing it in opposition to america's freedoms?

If that were true then only America would be effected, which it isn't, despite what your media might suggest.

[Jokersvirus]

Ehh they want to stop the west, the US, from overtaking their way of life with our ways and customs, so they are counteracting that by attacking us to push us back and to bring a pure muslim world to life.

[EpsilonX]

Okay, so throw religious reasons in there with political reasons.

[jango]

"Ehhh" .. you should really read what I wrote Joker rather than just rant for the sake of it. 'The West' isn't 'America' .. that was the point I was making. And anyway it's a red herring, because it's mostly about economics rather than culture or religion imo (same as it was in the Crusades). I still agree with Wobble .. one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist .. just depends what side of the fence you're on, and if you believe everything you're told. Acts against humanity (and no, not just ones that effect America) are hideous and sadly mankind doesn't know any better than to kill to either retaliate or to get what they want on a global level. That's true for whichever side of the fence you're on. To me it's a sad byproduct of our animal roots, and shows we've advanced no further than a pack of wild dogs fighting over a juicy bone, except that we have laser-guided dog collars on. Best to keep an open mind imo .. no-one likes to feel that they're on the wrong side, which reminds me of this Mitchell and Webb sketch ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y

Anyway, this post is distracting me from my beer .. so meh ..

[Jokersvirus]

I saw your post Jango, and im not ranting... America is the problem in their eyes, we are trying to control them and kill their way of life, and that pisses them off, its not about money its about religion.

Yes there has been terrorist attacks all over the world, but if im not mistaken none of americas allies will help with the war in the middle east due to threat of getting harmed by terrorist. That is what has been explained to me in my terrorism class.

But I will agree the violence is no way to solve any problem, it shouldnt even be a last resort. But in the end the violence all around the world is pathetic. This situation of terrorism wont ever end, and its really sad. We can kill every last terrorism but someone will pick up the pieces and rebuild.

[jango]

Amusing video I thought .. it might just be the beer talking *shrug*

[WobbleSock]

off topic:Al Qaeda is nothing more than thugs with a leader who is upset because of what happened during the failed Russian war in the 80s. You are right about "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter," but the problem is only people who see Al Qaeda as a freedom fighter are those who are apart of it, those who support them, etc etc. Personal..

Why would Bin Laden be upset over the Soviet invasion? The Soviets pulled out, admittedly it was because of their poor economic structure than the Mujahideen forces.

That's exactly what I mean; Those who think Al-Qaeda are Freedom Fighters are those that support him. I know that not many Muslims in Australia support Al-Qaeda, but here they live a more or less peaceful life. In Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon etc. the Islamic people have lived under Sharia law for a very long time, and when a large force comes in to change their opinion they get angry and will do what they can to get rid of the enemy to ensure their safety.


I doubt most of it has anything to do with religion. They are just using religion as an excuse for their goals which is pathetic. It's not just them, many have done it throughout history, even the US did during the Philippines thing a few decades ago.

I agree, but it is a smart move to get supporters. If the Islamic people are under the impression that Al-Qaeda is fighting for Islam, then people will want to join to help fight for the cause. This makes Al-Qaeda more dangerous in a sense, because no matter how many insurgents are captured or killed more people will join up to avenge them, and thus more lives will be taken.


Terrorism is, according to wikipedia, the use of terror as a means of coercion. Usually politically charged. Attacking the world trade center with suicide bombers is terrorism from anybody's point of view, for example

The word "Terrorism" is virtually meaningless, the word is too vague to be of much use. There is not much consistent use of the term, not even in national scale. George Washington was labelled as a Terrorist by the King of Britain, but he ended up becoming the first President of the United States and the most important person in American history.

It also doesn't help that the word "Terrorism" has never been properly defined. The first treaty dealing with terrorism was drafted in 1937 by the league of nations, and it used the following definition:

"...Criminal acts directed against a state or intended to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons, or a group of persons or the general public"

However, the problem with this definition was that the League of Nations didn't define what a "Criminal Act" was, and that was one of the reasons why the treaty never came into force. However, in more recent times there have been a number of different definintions written up for the word Terrorism, I will give two examples below.

The International Law Association defined "Acts of Terrorism" in the 1984 Paris conference. These included (But where not limited to):

"...atrocities, wanton killing, hostage taking, hijacking, extortion or torture, commited or threatened to be commited whether in peacetime or in wartime for political purposes"

The United States Criminal Law states that:

"...an act of terrorism means any activity that:
(A) Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if commited within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State
(B) Appears to be intended
--(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
--(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
--(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination & kidnapping"


Now, we would all agree that these definitions of terrorism are fairly straightforward, right? But then why was it necessary for the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a statement in 2005 about his disappointment that it had not been possible for the UN's Legal Committee to finalise a comprehensive treaty on Terrorism?

The UN system has about 13 different treaties dealing with the numerous aspects of Terrorism, but there is still no agreed definition of terrorism. This makes a huge dilemma for society; because a finalized definition for terrorism would change what society thinks is a terrorist. Our failure to agree on a international definition of Terrorism leads to ambiguity, which poses a threat to our human rights & political freedoms. Not only that, but it could also create the potential for international tension & misunderstandings. If, for example, destroying buildings like the WTC was considered terrorism, then what about a impoverished people who are suffering under the hands of a authoritarian dictatorship? Because of this, it would be completely impossible for them to fight for their freedoms because if they did they would be labelled as terrorists.

If you would like more info, then I suggest you get Keith Suters book "All about Terrorism: Everything you were too afraid to ask", its my main source of information regarding terrorism and its a good read.



Yes there has been terrorist attacks all over the world, but if im not mistaken none of americas allies will help with the war in the middle east due to threat of getting harmed by terrorist. That is what has been explained to me in my terrorism class.

Lol there are over 40 different countries involved in Afghanistan, not including the United States.

[Jokersvirus]

Why would Bin Laden be upset over the Soviet invasion? The Soviets pulled out, admittedly it was because of their poor economic structure than the Mujahideen forces.



Well the thing is OBL wanted his people to be picked over US assistance so that pissed him off and not long after, a few years later, he created AQ. The point is when the Sandi government picked outsiders instead of their own people that was the final straw for him and he pretty much hates the US, if you listen to all the hate speeches given by him, and his follwers/ commanders, they all state that us influence is out of control and they are trying to put it in check and make it a free muslim world, to sum them all up.

Pretty much what the soviets admitted they underestimated their enemy and fought a war on grounds they have never been on.

[Charlotte]

Aye, I know that you guys know more about this stuff compare to me but its actually does involving a little bit about religion tbh.

[WobbleSock]

Aye, I know that you guys know more about this stuff compare to me but its actually does involving a little bit about religion tbh.

Not trying to offend any religious members of the board, but most conflicts have religion woven in pretty deep.

[jango]

Not trying to offend any religious members of the board, but most conflicts have religion woven in pretty deep.

Being an avid follower of the Jedi Order I am offended that you cannot levitate rocks mate.

[Jokersvirus]

Wheres your light saber at mr Jango :P

[jango]

Wheres your light saber at mr Jango :P

Hmm .. after this many beers I might not even be able to find it :p