Can you explain? I mean quite literally all the universe and it's mechanics are 'relative'.

Why would I be an 'absolutionist'? I don't feel your definition is without example, just grossly mis-representative  of the whole. I don't see the 'world' through a different prism. There is only one prism, by definition representing the whole spectrum, and it's true that most any 'geopolitical', sociological (anthropological?) situation more often than not IS a spectrum of different catalysts and factors.

But so what? I dunno. Just kinda seemed like it was your definition that was more 'absolute'. I don't get my definition from Fox.

It remains that your definition of terrorist is too narrow, (naturally that's my opinion), to cover a cult like the taliban and a home grown movement like, say, the IRA. It would be difficult to find a singular commonality between those entities. It wouldn't be about the weak vs the strong either. Taliban had their way over the weak for quite a few years: while Afghans starved they went around with rulers measuring beard lengths. The taliban were not without considerable resources, nor where they 'cave-dwelling'. Their home was wherever they decided to lay their hat, so to speak.


Ahk

Cass,

I view the 'war on terrorists' as a 'mission'. Just to clarify things. A lot of other nations do as well. 


Nighty night
-Terry

The problem is that the word "terrorist" becomes POV in any discussion. Most of the time IT IS MORE OR LESS RELATIVE. Ones "terrorist" is anothers "freedom fighter". We have a terrorist organization in Turkey that the state is actively fighting against with all of its resources, it is called PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). Even the PKK is possibly deemed by some here in this board as fighting for the Kurdish peoples rigt to self determination. One can argue to distinguish terrorism by the tactics employed rather than the objectives, but in any setting where there is a conflict with a power that has the resources of a nation state and a lesser power the concept of "assymetric warfare" enters the picture and in assymetric warfare the tactics and weapons used by the weaker side lend themselves to be easily identified as being "terrorist". We could argue this till the cows come home and still get nowhere. The real (as in prevaling) distinguishment seems to be how the powers that be look on the issue. If a group is fighting against the US, Israel, Turkey etc. etc. then they are terrorists. If they are fighting against Iran, N.Korea, Syria etc. etc. they are freedom fighters. It is that simple. It all depends on how loud your voice is, if you can shout loud enough you can label any organization as being terrorist.

One simple example is Israeli Palestinian strife. We all know that all the Palestinian fighting is in the form of terror attacks by terrorists. How different is Hamas and Fatah and others from Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang of yesteryear?

As for being asked to be in Afghanistan.... I don't seem to recall Mullah Omar requesting US presence in Afghanistan back in 01 (not that he was in any way any more a legitimate a government than the northern alliance). The US effectively took sides in a civil war and the side that won as a result of US intervention has asked the US to remain (not that there is nothing wrong with that). From a moral perspective, putting aside the human cost, US presence in Afghanistan is one of the best things to come that countries way in a long time. I just hope that they'd get their act together, rebuild their country, establish the rule of law and send the US and NATO troops back home.

I think the word 'terrorist' as used now is towards Taliban, Al Qaeda and like minded groups. The philosophical discourse about terrorists is really off track in the current situation. IMHO

-Terry

You are exactly right about E. Timor Cass, but they are still extremist Islamic terrorists being dealt with there as well. The Australian Defence Forces are doing an admirable job of rooting them out.

-Terry