Pol Pot.... infact I would have to say that most Communist insurgents/freedom fighters/liberationalist would all have a pretty bad track record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Mate they wrote the book.
Printable View
Pol Pot.... infact I would have to say that most Communist insurgents/freedom fighters/liberationalist would all have a pretty bad track record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Mate they wrote the book.
I thought he was the government not a terrorist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
That is a special type of terrorism known as State terrorism.
If the bombing of Hiroshima etc was a "terrorist act" I guess you would class the murder,rape, decapitation,vivisection,medical experimentation and other assorted niceties committed by the Japanese against Chinese civilians as acts of kindness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Mate I could let the Hiroshima remark get by, but I'm afraid you're clutching at straws this time :D Those Catholic priests are like flies around a camp stew come execution time...doesn't mean diddly.
so back to my first comment on this thread... valid? Discuss! :D
Why? What an odd thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by pedro the swift
Here is the definition of a terrorist act in summary:
1. It involves violence
2. It is intended to have a Psychological impact
3. It is perpetrated for a political goal
4. It deliberately targets non-combatants
There is a 5th which is added in legislation to differentiate between what they are trying to target, and acts of war like bombing of civilian areas: the act is unlawful or not carried out by a legitimate government.
However, the term originates from the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution and the perpetrators were very much legitimate government agents.
Some people believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes. I'm not arguing that, but acts of terror, most definitely by strict definition. Not making any comment on whether or not they were warranted. I kind of think that blowing up hundreds of thousands of ordinary people is a bad thing and to be avoided. I know that the chief argument is that it brought the war to an early end, and therefore probably saved lives. Tough one.
But this is not my point. I am just trying to point out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion and has been used as a serious political strategy in the past.
I'm talking about his 'professed belief in "a God"'. You can't be agnostic and have one of those. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
I gong to argue! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Hiroshima was a city in Japan. It still is according to my atlas, albeit apparently completely re-built after an act of terrorism mid last century.
How do those Airforce planes get through airport security anway?? :?
Cheers,
P
:D
And BM passes his Ethics in warfare exam on a technicality...
:p
I'm not a theologian but I thought that an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying ?
Red brigade :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
I agree silent, Hiroshima was the largest terrorist act ever committed.
I also think that Israel uses terrorism tactics in its push to get more land promised by god.
No, an agnostic accepts that you can never know whether or not there is a god. It is impossible for an agnostic to have an absolute belief in God - if he does, he is not an agnostic. Some agnostics might believe that there could be a god, in other words, they don't rule it out. There is an important difference.Quote:
an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying
An atheist on the other hand believes that there is no god, or that there was one but he is dead. This is an absolute belief that an agnostic cannot hold.
As opposed to a gnostic, that is a completely different god botherer:U:U:UQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Then there are gnoles - and whatever you do, don't sell rope to them....
I watched part of that interview with Haneef. It was the most pathetic interviewing style I have seen in a while. As much as I disliked the attitude of the late Richard Carlton, he makes that interviewer look like schoolgirl.
She simply accepted everything and moved on to the next question. Are you are terrorist. No. OK. (not quoted)
And as to your solution Zed. The fact that the punishment is handed out by a "non believer" would make them a martyr and heighten their "hero" status.
Was it just me, or was the "one way ticket" line of questioning simply an ask and accept style of questioning? I still want to know why he had a one way ticket going to see his family shortly after the bombing, knowing that his family was involved.
Given that I didn't want to watch the rest of the interview, did he at any stage condemn his cousin.
I've got no problem with the way he was treated and I can tell you I have no sympathy for this government. His detention only differs from others in that he can be held without charge for a little longer than others. Big deal. It's not the G Bay type of detention.
As to his visa, well I see it as a privilege not an entitlement. If there is any doubt about him or even his family, why on earth should we be taking the risk.
Too me, the system has worked very well thus far. We are not dealing with people who play by the rules (which does not mean our government shouldn't) so the rules/laws need to evolve with the situation with which we are now faced. That my friends is a fact of life.
As an analogy, there was no need to legislate against spam at one point in time.
BTW- I have no view on whether Haneef is a terrorist or not. I don't know as I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Nor does anybody else posting their opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Had to Wiki that one:?
Hi CQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
My birth date is the 6th August and yes, every year I remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was recently some work done on the recollections of the victims and makes for horrible and compelling viewing. http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sear...rt=2&scope=all
Was it a terrorist act to drop a bomb on a city and kill 140,000 people? Was it a terrorist act to send the tanks into Tiannamen Square or massacre the men and boys of Srebeniza? Yes. Was it a terrorist act to storm Normandy or Gallipoli? Was it a terrorist act to send subs into Pearl Harbour and bomb the US fleet. No.
When soldiers fight soldiers its war, reprehensible, low down mean dirty old war. When civilian populations are randomly targetted its terrorism. I could get pedantic and claim that a lot of communication is terrorising civilian populations, eg tax department warnings, but that devalues the impact of the word.
But here is the rub, its a word that describes an emotion. It has been co-opted in the cause of political control. To create a war on an emotion!! wallys,
ps God told the shrub to invade Iraq. Poor god, she gets blamed for so much....
Sebastiaan
I read The Man Who Sold Rope to the Gnoles many years ago in an anthology of horror stories edited by Alfred Hitchcock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Allied bombing of Dresden, is that the same thing? Discuss (fight you buggers fight)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
Speaking of words and emotions, it's funny the way terrific is now accepted to mean the opposite of horrific, don't you think?
The very fact that civilians are victims of war does not make the act that killed them, 'a terrorist act', in a situation where they are collateral damage, so to speak. It sounds awful, I know.
How is that civilian categorized when he or she goes to work in a munitions factory or even a factory that supplies food to the armed forces. How is the same person categorized if they support the war in question.
I think the problem is the fact that war is no longer fought by two armies facing each other in a open field. Times have changed. Modern warfare is fought in areas surrounded by civilians. Identifying combatants is now also a problem, like in Vietnam. You don't know who the enemy is. The rules again, do seem to be followed by all involved.
Now honestly, why do we pretend that war is civilized and fought in accordance with rules? I think you can go back centuries and find examples of "unsportmanlike" behaviour on the battle fields and beyond. Who are we kidding.
Terrorism works, like it or not.
I'll bite, certainly was one of the greatest acts of vandalism in that war, almost as bad as building an army base on top of the ruins of Babylon. Was it terrorism, yes, it targetted civilians. So was the Mongol slaughter of the population of Peking, the Crusades were pretty suss, as was Cromwell's invasion of Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Sebastiaan
Just the facts ma'm........
Back in the olden times (ww2 or ww1 era) An American general did something like that and it instantly cured problems with fanatical terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
I agree. Its not as if he has been beaten, tortured etc. He lost his freedom while the authorities tried to put together a case against him. His name and integrity may have been unfairly impugned, blame the media for most of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
Not the nicest thing that could happen to anyone, and I certainly wouldn't like it to happen to myself or any of my family
however
what would all the bleeding hearts be saying if nothing was done, if they let him go and he then was part of a terrorist organisation that did commit an act of terrorism that targeted innocent people.
(I am not for one second suggesting that he is a terrorist or has links to any terrorist organisation)
Would the bleeding hearts feel any different if it was a member of their family that was killed because of a terrorist act?
I feel comfortable that due process has taken place, after all it has been decided that there was insufficient evidence to take it to court, or procure a conviction.
Remember a lot more guilty people are found not guilty than innocent people are convicted.
Suss? Mate, they were flamin' appalling. It's no wonder the moslem world decided the christians were a pack of psychos. Mind you, that has no relation with the current tension between the two religions (anyone who carries a grudge for that long is enough of a psycho to be irrelevant). Cromwell was a prize loon himself - the horrors inflicted by his lot are right up there with anyone carrying backpack bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
The problem with moslem extremists is that they have found new ways to do what we and others have been doing all along, and that they are the current flavour of loony. I don't think any civilisation has much to be proud of when you go looking for the killers and the extremists.
The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return. We live in volatile times, but that's no excuse to let our side boil over. Remember, the hardest part of any fight is knowing when to step back.
Richard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
I agree Grasshopper. "Note the bamboo, it bends in the breeze but is never broken". There is unfortunately some part of human nature that allows us the most appalling behaviour to ourselves, our planet and our co inhabitants. I think that is what religions attempt to address but get diverted along the way.
To reciprocate the violence of modern extremism makes us one of them,
Sebastiaan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
That is not the problem as all religions are fanatical. What you call the extremists (in both muslim and christian religions) are actually the true believers and the so called moderates have lost part of their faith.
Hence there will never be a solution to the age old problem between Islam and Christianity as both seek to convert each other to their version of the true religion.
All we can do is be vigilant and adopt Zeds solution when we catch one of the terrorists.
Peter.
I hope that none of them rent a nice french, american or russian bomb to "proof" the unbelieving scum on the the side out of existance so they can use the land to build a temple in which they can priase thier own god of choice.
Start Quote
Hey MH
Do you let him leave?. What if he was part of a cell here? Are there other members ready to attack here? Has he left a device (car bomb?) here that is ready to go?.
Of course you would have to interview him (as they did) if he was suspected of being part of a terrorist cell:rolleyes:. However, it became obviously apparent to us anti-Howard supporters that this was a botched job as time went by. Like the main evidence against him was it was supposedly his sim card that would be used to detinate the bomb. But it wasn't and they (the investigators) knew of that early in the peace but of course they didn't want to look stupid in their case so they spent time tying to discredit the poor guy. Do you remember that one of the ivestigators wrote details on some paper but tried to hang it on the poor doctor:((.
Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes:). Poor old Dazzler (who comes across as being a racist) is disappointed that his beloved Howard will be on his way after the next election. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pass the poison chalice over to Costello as soon as it gets through his thick head that it will lose in a landslide. Remember Dazzler as a citizen of this country I have equall as yours. You were just fortunate to have been born here.
Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?. Please show the text where I said he "should not have been interviewed".
End Quote
Sorry MH just found this, didnt mean to seem rude. For some reason your post wouldnt quote properly so I have block copied it. Your qoute is above.
How do you interview him :? . He is about to get on a plane to india. There is no right to interview him, he is free to leave, unless he is either arrested or detained. There was nothing about his sim card being used or planned to be used to detonate a car bomb. There was no main evidence. Just circumstantial evidence that he was questioned about.
The investigator made a mistake during the interview by referring to a photocopy of a page of his notebook that had writing on it. The dr stated it wasnt his so the D/S went and checked, came back and corrected it on tape.
FYI, frequently an interviewer will place an exhibit (say the notebook) in a sealed bag to show the suspect, and hand a photocopy of the document in question to the suspect so they can refer to it. They will often write on the police copy questions and lines of inquiry to prompt them during a lengthy interview.
Now you have to read this bit slowly, cause its important. The charges were dropped because it is not clear whether or not the alleged suspects in the UK belonged to a declared terrorist group. If the group is linked to a declared terrorist group then they will most probably reinstate the charge. It had nothing to do with the location the sim was found. This is why the charge was "recklessly" which removes the intent componant of the higher charge. IMO it would be a long bow to get up on anyway. Just another example of the media misreporting the facts.
Now to the more serious bits;
1. Please explain how I come across as racist, what comment can you point to that is racist or implies racism on my part?
1a. Perhaps others on the board can point to it so that I can apoligise to everyone. :)
2. Where have I suggested or intimated that I love Howard. What comment can you point to that shows this?
3. How does the fact that I was born here have any bearing on what I have said?
4. Once again, if you were the investigator, what would you have done at the airport given the concerns that had been raised about him? Concerns great enough for a pass alert to have been granted under the conditions explained earlier.
cheers
dazzler (who grew up being called "wogboy" in a small country town by our indigenous people :rolleyes: )
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Eh? Come again? After Okinawa, who was going to pursue a land war when there was something available that might expedite a surrender? You being provocative Mr C? For the record, Gen LeMay reckoned if the war had gone the other way he might have had a war crimes problem but he was referring to the fire bombing strategy, not the nukes.
Not at all. What I am doing is demonstrating how the word 'terrorism' has been associated with a particular view or impression of what is constituted by the word when in fact it has a wider definition.
People associate terrorism with religious fundamentalists. Terrorism is any act that uses terror (or fear) to promote a political cause. Dropping a nuclear bomb to wipe out an entire city could have no other purpose than to demonstrate to the Japanese government what the capabilities of the US were and to shock or frighten them into surrendering - which is excatly what happened.
When it is drawn up in legislation, the extra criteria that the act must be illegal or not committed by a legitimate government to be considered terrorist has been added to protect the military. Otherwise they might be hoist by their own petard.
Once again, I'm not arguing whether or not the bombing was necessary, I'm arguing that terrorism is a broader term than people seem to believe and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
I'm in the middle of Niall Ferguson's book - War of the World. Many, many cases of genocide/cleansing that I had no memory or awareness of. By and large these all would be classed as terrorism. When I was growing up the "proper" terrorists were the likes of the Mau Mau. Of course the current religious problems go back to the crusades, very nasty & reciprocated and seemingly not capable of resolution....
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=282533
GO DAZZLER, GO DAZZLER
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAZZLER :2tsup:
.
go Dazzler, Go Dazzler
:2tsup: :2tsup:
Exactly Dazzler. QED.
I reckon anyone detained under this legislation should not have any right to seek compensation if charges are not laid and/or upheld.
Why chance feeding a terrorist organisation with money
So there you all go again, believing what's written in the press at face value.
When the full script is available, I'll (well I won't 'cause I couldn't be bothered) draw a conclusion.
Yesterday (before this release) that well known Australian High Court Equivalent, Good Morning Australia, had a poll and nearly 70% of respondants thought Haneef shouldn't get his visa back. Well they wouldn't have dialed in if they hadn't had access to the whole 20,000 pages of evidence I'm sure, so they must be right.
So... does anyone think there might be a correlation between a popular poll, a politician's stance, and an edited snippet from an internet conversation?
Cheers,
P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
Quote:
Originally Posted by boban
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Zero
I'm wondering if I'll have any of you to talk to tomorrow after this conversation's been intercepted??Quote:
Originally Posted by TEEJAY
P
:rolleyes: