what is terrorism (Page 2)

silverismoney
silverismoney: Quote - Monday, August 6, 2001 - GOLD @ $267.20 - FOA: "The result will be a massive dollar price rise in gold that performs over several years."

Tuesday, January 1, 2002 - Launch of euro notes and coins
Friday, February 8, 2002 - GOLD ABOVE $300
Monday, December 1, 2003 - GOLD ABOVE $400
Thursday December 1, 2005 - GOLD ABOVE $500
Monday, April 17, 2006 - GOLD ABOVE $600
Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - GOLD ABOVE $700
Friday, November 2, 2007 - GOLD ABOVE $800
Monday, January 14, 2008 - GOLD ABOVE $900
Monday, March 17, 2008 - GOLD ABOVE $1000
Monday, November 9, 2009 - GOLD ABOVE $1100
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - GOLD ABOVE $1200
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - GOLD ABOVE $1300
Wednesday, November 9, 2010 - GOLD ABOVE $1400
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 - GOLD ABOVE $1500
Monday, July 18, 2011 - GOLD ABOVE $1600
Monday, August 8, 2011 - GOLD ABOVE $1700
Thursday, August 18, 2011 - GOLD ABOVE $1800

12 years ago Report
0
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: Silver, wow, buddy, you want me to get a clue and go visit a websight for you because you are either to damn lazy to think on your own, or you are just whinning about that which you are totally ignorant. "Infoewars.com" REALLY? REALY? Yea you are right, that sounds so totally balance fair and unbias. And you know, I just heard that Obama is the worst president ever, yea it must be true, that is what GOP.com is reporting. Go research that and GET A CLUE!!!!! Or better yet, Govener Scott Walker is out to destroy all unions, yea, it's true, go to WISCONSIN_DEM_PARTY.com AND GET A CLUE. Silver, so far your responce is they manipulate Wall Street. Yea I got that bit your first go Around with "the Wallstreet is the heartland of terrorism" comment. I'm actually asking you, not a websight, but you, to maybe be more specific than that. If you don't respond, hey cool, but if you do respond, can you be more than a cheap advertisment? Maybe try to put one to five sentences together that more specifically conveys your thought. Because I gotta be honest with you, I asked my son today what he had for breakfest, and his brilliant answer was he had a breakfest. Don't get me wrong, I can definately find alittle humor in there, and god I hope that was a go at being humorous. See, it's not that hard, I just put a few loose thoughts together and made this very long responce, when it all comes down to I could have just said, can you expound upon that. But I did that the first time and I only got a commercial. And no, yours was not as good as the AFLAC duck. It was more like a BK spot.
12 years ago Report
0
Mira_Azer
Mira_Azer: ask it to US!!!!!!!
12 years ago Report
1
davidk14
davidk14: .

Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.
Edgar Allan Poe


The quote means that we shouldn't lend much credence to possible rumors or gossip or simply the way one defines another. It may be because people have various and different point of views about everything. A persons simple acts may be defined as impolite and unjust. The opinion usually travels a long way. Most of what we hear from others many times may or may not be cooked up stories. If we judge others by what we only hear, then we are letting ourselves open to be manipulated by propaganda.

Believe only half of what you see means we may witness only the first or last part of an action and often this leads to misunderstanding and misjudging others.

This quote doesn't mean that we shouldn't pay any attention to other's words or shouldn't believe what we see because at times they may be true.

Research and resource.

.
12 years ago Report
2
nader_pal23
nader_pal23: after some Mint's u will know that Terrorism meaning ... I mean WHEN USA Lift its veto in the face of the request for recognition of a Palestinian state, and continuity
Support the occupation of Palestinian territories and committing crimes by Israel...American Veto is the new Terrorism
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14:
.

There are those who believe the boundaries should be what they were just before Syria, Jordan and Egypt attacked Israel in 1967.

There are those who believe that the boundaries should be what they became immediately after being attacked by Syria, Jordan and Egypt in 1967. The Palestinians never were mentioned by Egypt, Syria or Jordan. Nader, why was that?

______________________________________


And then there are those like nader who believe the boundaries should be pre-1948. Now nader isn't stupid. He is intelligent and I’m sure he can answer the following questions.

______________________________________


Since 1967, Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt, and through ‘negotiations’ returned the Sinai (which is 4 times larger than the State of Israel and loaded with oil) and Israel would have returned the Gaza, but Egypt did not want the Gaza and abandoned it to Israel.

So, please answer a few questions:

Why would Egypt abandon the Gaza to Israel and not to the Palestinians?

Why would Egypt also build a wall so that Palestinians could not enter Egypt?

When Israel completely evacuated the Gaza to move the peace process forward ‘as negociated’ with the Palestinians, why did the Palestinians attack Israel with suicide bombers and thousands of rockets?

Is this how the Palestinians extended their hand of peace in return for the Gaza?

_____________________________________


Since 1967, Israel signed peace treaties with Jordan, and through ‘negotiations’ surprisingly, the West Bank was abandoned by Jordan.

Israel would have certainly returned the West Bank to Jordan for a peace treaty, yet Jordan signs a peace treaty but abandons the lands won in war to Israel. Why would Jordan abandon the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel and not give the land to the Palestinians?

_____________________________________



So Israel has a track record of returning land for peace. For close to a year, Israel stopped all building on the West Bank and East Jerusalem but nothing happened during the negotiations. Nothing. Not one topic was seriously discussed by Palestinian negotiators during those 10+ months that Israel completely stopped building. Now why was that?

_____________________________________


Exactly, what have the Palestinians done to extend its hand in peace? Name one thing? Just one.

.
(Edited by davidk14)
12 years ago Report
1
silverismoney
silverismoney: Join the protests! Time for wall street to pay!
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Oh stop it. Stop being a lemming.

.
12 years ago Report
1
CourtGesture
CourtGesture: Terrorism is when violence is used against a target for political reasons that is, by it's nature, one that has no political or military value. This almost always means means violence directed at a wholly civilian target. This differs from "collateral damage" in which civilians are killed but the primary target is one that has military value. When the Taliban sends a suicide bomber into a crowded market, it is readily apparent that the target is civilian in it's nature and one with no strategic, military value. Rather, the intent is to kill as many people as possible and scare the general population, that is to "terrorize" them. When the United States uses a missile to destroy a mountainous hideout where the Taliban is stockpiling AK-47's and RPG's and are also foolish enough to use to house their wives and children, this is not terrorism because the primary target is one that has military value. "Intent" is what defines terrorism as being such.
12 years ago Report
1
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: Addicted, now admittedly I'm going to try to back you in a corner here because the first sentence of your post is pretty sharp. I'm still not sure there is a definitive universal accepted understanding of what a terrorist act is. That said, You summed it up much better than I could and I share your perspective.

So a question is this, would a doomsday device, just by nature of it's existence, not be considered terrorism atleast to some degree?

I would say no to how you defined terrorism as an "act of violence". But it does in the end have some of the same goals, it would be for political reasons, it would be for coercion......and it is the threat of violence.

My personal belief is still no it would not be, it would be a deterrent.
12 years ago Report
0
CourtGesture
CourtGesture: Well, I guess it could be argued, and possibly justifiably so that the stockpiling of nuclear weapons actually prevented another world war. Mutually-self-assured-destruction I believe was the term. Although, back in the 70's and 80's a lot of people were worried about nuclear war it was more of a casual fear. I don't think it generally "terrorized" the population. I imagine most sane people just went about their daily business without giving it much thought. It's main purpose was to deter the other sides armed forces from attacking, not to directly influence their civilian population.
12 years ago Report
1
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: I remember a great line I heard in a Bond flick ..." One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter......" and oddly that always made the most sense to me. It's one's perspective that ultimately defines it. Your first sentence made me stop and reflect on that as maybe it's not as superficial as I've been thinking.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Freedom fighters do NOT use their women and children as human shields to manipulate the media.

.
(Edited by davidk14)
12 years ago Report
2
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: Dave, not in our perspective. However, when I first heard the line, it's easy enough to relate to on alot of levels. Looking at it from the other guys perspective, it could be a justified. As disagreeable as that is, one thing for sure you want to know amongst everything else is your opponent is their resolve. Are they abit blinded by their hatred, ofcourse. But they do see it as justified no matter how inhumane the act.

Look at our country. Very naive up to the planes crashing into the trade center. The country as a whole had vengence in it's heart as we watched people in the mideastern world dancing in the streets. At some point, you have to relate that kind of feeling they have toward us to them. That is all it meant. The is what is gained by terrorism.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Your comment, "Looking at it from the other guys perspective, it could be a justified." Then one could also say, "Looking at it from the others guys perspective, using WMD's could be justified." The challenge is not to justify those efforts, and not accept the term, freedom fighter, a very general term. The dancing in the streets you mentioned, was a response by controlled media propaganda effort which has been ongoing for decades and for generations. I'm not challenging your post, just adding a few comments.

.
12 years ago Report
1
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: Dave, you make a good point, freedom fighter is a very vague term. And to me so was terrorist equally a vague term. In some ways they are almost depending on perspective as to which classification one could use.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter to me may be somewhat in error now. I may be more naive on these terms than I originally thought.
12 years ago Report
0
exhibgirl
exhibgirl: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now exclude acts of state terrorism and some also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.
12 years ago Report
1
zelalemnew
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
Soviet_Gefreiter123
Soviet_Gefreiter123: terrorism is when i get woken up in the middle of the night to crawl my ass out of bed and off to bloody work, now thats something i really detest.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: What is your work?
12 years ago Report
0
GeraldTheGnome
(Post deleted by staff 11 years ago)
Soviet_Gefreiter123
Soviet_Gefreiter123: lets say people like me make you sleep better at night.
12 years ago Report
0
GeraldTheGnome
(Post deleted by staff 11 years ago)
GeraldTheGnome
(Post deleted by staff 11 years ago)
Soviet_Gefreiter123
Soviet_Gefreiter123: Curious wonder the world their entire life having their questions unanswered thinking everything is a conspiracy, and that is completely stupid the world is run by real events and if you stop looking for hidden meanings you will find out that more cards are actually laid off on the table in plain view.
12 years ago Report
1