I have heard that Spain unfolded a plot that was suppose to be carried out and claimed by Al Qaeda and a member of the Taliban.  Even after they pulled troops out of Iraq and Afghan they are still being targeted.  I think these terrorist target the weak because it is harder to hit those that strongly oppose them.  I have always said that no matter who the next president of the US, they will be tested with some kind of terrorist action, either here or abroad, to test thier strength in dealing with terrorist.  Terrorist are niether resistors or freedom fighters as many who support them claim they are.  They are simply murderers.

I couldn't agree more. But better where the terrorists live than in our homelands if at all possible. The more we go them there, the less chance we have of another 9/11 or Bali or...


-Terry

Ah, Terry the old "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" BushInc. mantra?  Which then leads me back to the question or comment, related to the relativism of who are those described as terrorists.

Are they those who are without political or economic power, or both, who are using a different form of killing to attempt to overthrow those they believe are oppressing them.  Which leads us on to Iraq instead of Afghanistan with the question of a pre-emptive war and occupation and the question of whether those who are Iraqi, described as "insurgents" are nationalists or terrorists, though the military tactics may be those most often associated with terrorism.

I will give you those foreign fighters, who claim allegiance to al Qaeda, though difficult to identify and with no evidence of their existence in Iraq prior to "shock and awe" unquestionably not only use terrorist tactics, but are often indiscriminate in who they kill, whether the innocent civilian population or those serving the military, "coalition of the willing" or Iraqis. 

And on the question of military tactics, how soon we forget the seige of Fallujah, when against the banning by most of the world, the U.S. military chose to use both the modern version of napalm, M77 and "willie pete" white phospherus, on the civilvian population, actions that have been well documented.  Was such use just a choice of military tactics, or a tactic more related to terrorism?

The term "terrorist," in the context it's been put in since the "war on terror" accurately describes any group about as well as "fascism" is, in the modern era, a specific ideology.

That is to say, it's all bunk. The United States, in its frenzy to rid the world of barbaric islamic extremism, has labeled everything from radical fringe groups to military arms of sovereign nations as "terrorist" organizations. By its own definition, The United States is terrorist. Much of the world sees the United States as terrorist.

Ergo, it's all subjective, relative to which state's official stance you adhere to. Or which political party. That is, if you choose to allow a body like that to formulate your paradigm.

I may be wrong, deianthropus, but I think that was a factor in the point I was attempting to make that caused Terry, at my request to post this topic, but was on a different thread, I had previously posted.

Then I am one of those who looked on the events of 9-11 as a criminal act, perhaps using tactics, described as terrorist, but one that should have been
dealt with by those world organizations who deal with such acts and or with the hunting down, arresting and trying bin Laden et al. Rather than an attack on a sovereign nation.

While Terry prefers the killing option, for those deemed by some to be terrorists, I have great respect for the SAS, and the special forces of many nations who I am convinced might have accomplished the capture of Osama
the actual admitted, along with others, perpetrator not only of that event, but of others. Were the Taliban guilty of providing refuge and training locations for him. Sure, but isn't the same true of Musharraf?

On thing I've noted over the years though perhaps OT, is the U.S. of late, attacks nations that DON'T have nukes not those who do and ignore those where those such as Osama, the nationality of largest numbers of those who were the actual highjackers of the planes on 9-11, and who continue to produce and finance many of those claimed to be al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere.  As a consequence I  find it difficult to ignore the hypocrisy of the current and many past U.S. Administrations.

The thread is here though it is wandered far for the original topic.

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,1204.60/

Terry kindly introduced the new thread at my request.  Akh, may have hit the nail on the head when he mentioned anthropology as that is where my educational background lies, though actually it goes past the single subject and includes other social science disciplines.

During the period I was in grad and under grad school, in the 1970s and early '80s as a re-entry student, much of my education and profs were those who were out of the '60s and there has been a considerable generation gap and at this point  far different, and IMHO, return to the concept of "absolutism" if you will since that time.

While my education was in progress, there was the goal of questioning and determining the answer by evaluation in the process of "values clarification." That whole process has been currently damned by more politically right wing philosophy as not having any valididity as right and wrong of an issue is not questionable. 

I'm not sure this makes any sense, but it works for me and may work for others
in determining for oneself how one views the world. Thus the comment about relativism and absolutism. Where some may see the world as relative, others
accept the views expounded by the dominant culture of the period as absolute.

In an examination of Ahk's comment, I would say he was primarily referring to the physical world, where I was attempting to discuss the acqusition of cultural
values which then lead to an expressed social opinion.

Terrorism in the modern day, just as it always has been, is the tool used MOSTLY by the weak. When you cannot achieve your goals through military might or diplomacy then it may be "nessicary" to instil fear to achieve victory. The change we are now seeing is the possibility to inflict MASSIVE destruction, the groups and reasons that carry out the attacks haven't changed much. (states want to keep power, revolutionary groups want to take it) Terrorism is still carried out by small groups who have revolutionary goals and it is also carried out by states when they cannot simply dominate through force.