11-08-2005, 06:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2005, 06:17 PM by Occhidiangela.)
[quote=Fragbait,Nov 8 2005, 05:05 AM]
Hi,
"Modern/Western civilizations" dealt with the same 'terrorists' before 1983 and a load of other tripe.[QUOTE]
Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions. If you want to play games with words, go ahead, but you can't fool me.
The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran, until overthrown, just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq, just as the current parties are the recognized government of Iran. Likewise Emperor Louis Napoleon was the legit leader of France before overthrown by the Third Republic. Chancellor Kohl used to lead the legitimate government of Germany. Kim Jong Il is the legit leader of North Korea.
The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives of their nation state. Learn what a nation state is before you try your sophistry again on this topic, since the UN made up member nations all of whom are nation states.
Therefore, as the legit governments of nation states, none of these governments are terrorists, they can't be. They are national organs, with an obligation to protect and defend their people as best they can. They may endorse and support terrorists on the side, like Islamic Jihad, IRA, specifically Hezbollah, Ansar Al Islam, and for all I know, Tim McVeigh and his buddies who hit Oklahoma City.
What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?
Terrorists are members of extranational organizations who use terror as a tool to achieve a political end.
If you can't understand what an extranational organization is -- Doctors Without Borders, REd Cross, Red Crescent, Amnesty International, the Davos group, the Free Masons, what have you -- then you can't understand what a terrorist organization and what a terrorist is. Many extranational organizations go to great pains to work within the law, local and international.
The terrorist explicity works outside the law and lawful structure as it exists, since he feels the system will not enable him to achieve his ends. Under international law he is an outlaw in the old sense of the word. Problem is, someone provides him food, shelter, and succor, or at least a place to operate from while turning a blind eye . . . exactly the kind of set up prohibited by the old laws covering the status of "out law."
That is why the Taliban went down. They provided succor and aid to an outlaw organization, and they were happy to do nothing about it. Taliban were, at the time, the legitimate government of Afghanistan, who have since been replaced via legitimate means: A UN sanctioned act of force.
Al Qaeda is one of many extranational organization that uses force, violence and terror to achieve a political end without having to worry about protecting their "innocent," civilian population as legitimate governments (the good, the bad, and the ugly) must. It is not accountable to any government, per se. MI 6 or Mossad, on the other hand, are organizations who may work in the shadows for the British/Israeli Government, but are answerable to the legit government, and through the legit government to other governments via treaties, letter of agreement, protocol, extradition, etcetera. The Pasderan in Iran as well. They may do illegal things, but there is lawful process for recourse to that via legitimate means through their government.
No such structure exists for dealing with Hezzbolla or Al Qaeda, for example, since no government "owns" them, though some slide support to them on the sly. The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul.
Do you need any further explanation on what a terrorist is in the context of this conversation, in the context of international law, or in the context of global politics as they now exist? Or are you going to keep playing silly word games?
Occhi
Hi,
"Modern/Western civilizations" dealt with the same 'terrorists' before 1983 and a load of other tripe.[QUOTE]
Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions. If you want to play games with words, go ahead, but you can't fool me.
The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran, until overthrown, just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq, just as the current parties are the recognized government of Iran. Likewise Emperor Louis Napoleon was the legit leader of France before overthrown by the Third Republic. Chancellor Kohl used to lead the legitimate government of Germany. Kim Jong Il is the legit leader of North Korea.
The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives of their nation state. Learn what a nation state is before you try your sophistry again on this topic, since the UN made up member nations all of whom are nation states.
Therefore, as the legit governments of nation states, none of these governments are terrorists, they can't be. They are national organs, with an obligation to protect and defend their people as best they can. They may endorse and support terrorists on the side, like Islamic Jihad, IRA, specifically Hezbollah, Ansar Al Islam, and for all I know, Tim McVeigh and his buddies who hit Oklahoma City.
What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?
Terrorists are members of extranational organizations who use terror as a tool to achieve a political end.
If you can't understand what an extranational organization is -- Doctors Without Borders, REd Cross, Red Crescent, Amnesty International, the Davos group, the Free Masons, what have you -- then you can't understand what a terrorist organization and what a terrorist is. Many extranational organizations go to great pains to work within the law, local and international.
The terrorist explicity works outside the law and lawful structure as it exists, since he feels the system will not enable him to achieve his ends. Under international law he is an outlaw in the old sense of the word. Problem is, someone provides him food, shelter, and succor, or at least a place to operate from while turning a blind eye . . . exactly the kind of set up prohibited by the old laws covering the status of "out law."
That is why the Taliban went down. They provided succor and aid to an outlaw organization, and they were happy to do nothing about it. Taliban were, at the time, the legitimate government of Afghanistan, who have since been replaced via legitimate means: A UN sanctioned act of force.
Al Qaeda is one of many extranational organization that uses force, violence and terror to achieve a political end without having to worry about protecting their "innocent," civilian population as legitimate governments (the good, the bad, and the ugly) must. It is not accountable to any government, per se. MI 6 or Mossad, on the other hand, are organizations who may work in the shadows for the British/Israeli Government, but are answerable to the legit government, and through the legit government to other governments via treaties, letter of agreement, protocol, extradition, etcetera. The Pasderan in Iran as well. They may do illegal things, but there is lawful process for recourse to that via legitimate means through their government.
No such structure exists for dealing with Hezzbolla or Al Qaeda, for example, since no government "owns" them, though some slide support to them on the sly. The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul.
Do you need any further explanation on what a terrorist is in the context of this conversation, in the context of international law, or in the context of global politics as they now exist? Or are you going to keep playing silly word games?
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete