Forum menu
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
That definition is somewhat at odds with our human rights, particularly the right to life, and the right to liberty and security.
I'd argue even authorised violence is terrorism.
Which is quite embarrassing for Jeremy Corbyn, as I saw him on television the other day having a discussion with the leader of her majesty's government, he really is friends with terrorists.
Disgusting. He should take a leaf out of Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu's book - he refused to share a platform with Tony Blair because he didn't want to be associated with a terrorist.
I have no idea why you are attributing that quote to me seosamh, I didn't make it, I merely responded to it.
aye, didn't mean to, edited.
Fair enough.
BTW it should be remembered that terrorists we like are called "rebels".
When ISIS was beheading Syrian soldiers the UK government classed them as nothing more than rebels. But when they became naughty and crossed the border into Iraq and did the same thing to our friends they were reclassified as terrorists.
From the start of the Syrian Civil War until June last year ISIS were rebels, after June last year they were terrorists. Despite using exactly the same tactics before and after June last year.
Remember, if it's you doing the terrorism it's "shock and awe" and "sending a clear message".
the Rev Charles Dodgson on the subject of meanings of words,and he knew what he was talking about.“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
BTW it should be remembered that terrorists we like are called "rebels".
Or "freedom fighters", of whom I think the Nicaraguan Contras were the first example, murdering teachers and doctors in the cause of ... errr .... "freedom".
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Could easily be a description of our intervention in Iraq.
Except it was official and authorised.
It's just what you call the enemy.
So - slightly more on topic - if you think Israel are behaving badly, and the Palestinians have a legitimate grudge, does that make you a terrorist sympathiser? AND are you therefore untrustworthy in some way?
Well, no, because that would be suggesting that the only method of resisting Israel's "bad behaviour" is terrorism, which is stupid.
So was Corbyn condoning terrorism then in some other way?
Shock and Awe was carried out by an authorised military coalition against another countries military and undertaken with specific engagement rules, so no not an act of terrorism.
There are many reasons to be against the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous aftermath, but labeling it things it wasn't, doesn't help the argument.
Hmm. Seems that, for example, Hamas and Hezbullah fit that definition quite well.So, actually, quite similar after all.
Terrorism is a strategy for violence. Whoever uses that strategy is a terrorist. Hamas and Hezbollah are many things: governments, fronts, armies and also terrorists. Nelson Mandela was also a terrorist - as he explicitly explained in his autobiography when discussing MK's (unsuccessful) adoption of terrorism.
People like you that inject moral elements into identifying terrorism just unnecessarily muddy the waters.
Totally off topic, but did someone here say -
I wouldn't be talking up the resurgence of the left in Greece just yet as the polls suggest Syriza are going to take a beating in the snap election.
People like you that inject moral elements into identifying terrorism just unnecessarily muddy the waters.
On the contrary, I am not injecting a moral element at all. In fact I am saying that the word "terrorist" means more or less nothing. It says more about the person using the word than it does about their subject.
I think that's fairly accurate DrJ.
Shock and Awe was carried out by an authorised military coalition
As I asked before - who did the authorising? Is it like a passport application where it has to be signed by a GP or a solicitor?
Well, it was authorised by parliament. They did apparently consult a legal team on the legality. BUT I believe there is some debate as to whether or not that team was correct, as we know there is often dispute between different legal professionals. It's kind of their job after all.
I still think your point would be better made though if you just stated it rather than asking all these questions to which I am sure you know the answer.
Well, it was authorised by parliament.
So, in effect, then, the UK parliament decides who is a terrorist and who isn't? Who invested them with that authority? Call me churlish, but it seems a bit unfair.
As I asked before - who did the authorising? Is it like a passport application where it has to be signed by a GP or a solicitor?
You know all this that war criminal Blair who faked a dossier to get parliamentary approval for a war he wanted to wage
It was legitimate and illegitimate at the same time
like Hamas but with better western PR- please lets not discuss that as a serious point and treat it as a flippant throw away remark as I mean no disrespect to hamas there [ see point i just made etc]
So, in effect, then, the UK parliament decides who is a terrorist and who isn't?
Well they are supposed to operate by a set of international laws. There is a court that can adjudicate too.
Honestly don't know where you're going with this or what it's got to do with Corbyn.
Well, it was authorised by parliament. They did apparently consult a legal team on the legality.
No, parliament did not consult a legal team on the legality. The government sort legal advice which they kept secret from everyone including parliament.
2 years after the start of the Iraq War :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/28/uk.world3 ]Revealed: the government's secret legal advice on Iraq war[/url]
Quote :
[i]"Tony Blair was told by the government's most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal.
In a legal opinion Mr Blair has repeatedly refused to publish and never seen by the cabinet, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, spelled out the dangers of going to war, including the prospect of Britain losing a case in an international court"[/i]
In fact as even the cabinet didn't see the legal advice it was just Tony Blair who was aware of it. The warmonger obviously didn't want his own government to see the legal advice.
Honestly don't know where you're going with this or what it's got to do with Corbyn.
What it has to do with Corbyn is that JC has been widely pilloried for cosying up to "terrorists", but as any fule kno, one man's terrorist is another man's ... err .. non-terrorist (since there is no logical or consistent definition of 'terrorist'), so this accusation is entirely empty, and just exposes the prejudices of the accuser.
Yeah, and what does 'cosying up' actually mean here?
In summary; terrorist/freedom fighter/patriot is purely a matter of perspective. If someone blows up your nan's house, it doesn't matter if the bomb came with a seal of approval from some distant political forum, you're still going to feel fairly terrorised.
Yeah, and what does 'cosying up' actually mean here?
It means keeping channels of communication open in the hope of promoting peace, or in jambaland committing gross acts of sexual depravity and devil worshipping.
Is JC a Spurs fan 😉
DrJ just because the Iraq war was wrong and Blair a liar still does not make it an act of terrorism. The British forces went and fought under a clear code of conduct and those that didn't and were caught were duely tried and punished. They also did not set out to deliberately kill women and children. This is clearly different from the IRA bombing Manchester city centre or the AQ 9-11 attacks.
The RAF destroyed Dresden.
ISIS destroyed Palmyra.
The IRA destroyed Cannon Street.
If we are going to infiltrate terrorist or military organisations, this perfectly illustrates the importance of using someone with a decent taste in architecture.
Makes you think.
A bit like the green book issued by PIRA to their volunteers then, which has 'has acted as a manual of conduct and induction to the organisation since at least the 1950s.'...clear code of conduct...
Perspective, it depends on yours, doesn't it?
These headlines just get better and better
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html ]British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general [/url]
They also did not set out to deliberately kill women and children. This is clearly different from the IRA bombing Manchester city centre
The PIRA Manchester bombing is a poor example as they did not set out to deliberately kill women and children. In fact nobody died because the PIRA gave a 90 minute warning.
And while the coalition might not have set out to deliberately kill women and children there was clearly a callous disregard to the known certainty that they would be killing women and children.
You don't bomb a city like this without being fully aware that you will be killing women and children.
[img] 
[/img]
Baghdad was a city full of women and children.
Dresden was not a terrorist attack and Nazi Germany wouldn't have considered it so either. Any shot down RAF service would have been taken to a POW camp and not shot on sight as per 'terrorists'.
PIRA I've no idea what's in their book but as they aren't the sanctioned any of Ireland and are operating outwith is laws then clearly they are terrorists.
British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general
There's a lot of panicking going on considering everyone is certain that Jeremy Corbyn has no chance at all of winning the next general election.
And it isn't for almost another 5 years anyway. This election that JC has absolutely no chance of winning.
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
I'm pretty certain the Iraq war would come under that definition. If that's not terrorism, god knows what is.
So if the army staged a coup, would that be an act of terrorism?
Dresden was not a terrorist attack
So the RAF deliberately killing 25,000 civilians was OK, but the IRA deliberately killing nobody at all was bad. You do realise how ridiculous that sounds, don't you?
It would entirely depend on their actions. A coup in itself doesn't have to be terrorism. It'd likely be incredibly un-democratic, but it's doesn't have to involve terrorism.BruceWee - Member
So if the army staged a coup, would that be an act of terrorism?
I've no idea why this is so difficult to grasp.
So if the army staged a coup, would that be an act of terrorism?
Good heavens no, it would be an act of patriotism.
It's a bit of a stretch to say the PIRA killed no-body.DrJ - Member
but the IRA deliberately killing nobody at all was bad.
But with in that there is the added compliction of spies, plants, deliberately ignored warnings, collusion and direct support for loyalist paramilitaries.
From the 70s onwards, the PIRA weren't the only ones engaged in terrorism. It's a pretty standard tactic in any war.
Although anybody fighting against the army to support the democratically elected government would be terrorist scum.
It wasn't intended as a wholly serious comment.
Merely an illustration of the pathetic hair splitting and ignorant nonsense spouted by those attempting to justify mass murder.
From the 'Green Book'
The Irish Republican Army, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupation forces and domestic collaborators. All volunteers are and must feel morally justified in carrying out the dictates of the legal government; they as the Army are the legal and lawful Army of the Irish Republic which has been forced underground by overwhelming forces.
Sounds awfully official and authorised to me. From a certain perspective, at least.
Brilliant isn't it? The ironic thing is, is that it's so bleedingly obviously a smear campaign that even my previously completely uninterested and apolitical friends are now; a) taking notice, and b) see the nasty campaign for exactly what it is. This could be the start of a tidal wave of change. Of course it probably isn't; the establishment are very good at getting their own way, one way or another.going on considering everyone is certain that Jeremy Corbyn has no chance at all of winning the next general election.