Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
The Leader is probably a real personThe Leader is probably a real person
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 12:14 PM       
Uh, terrorism is just a term used to help differentiate between actors. What you write is true when you look at a lot of media and people who are not familiar with terrorism studies and such, like many politicians, but the term isn't actually some judgemental thing. The US has supported terrorists and the reason that some terrorists target the US is because they feel that the US is a aggressor or supporter of a agressor. Not that you'll pay attention to this post because it doesn't completely agree with what your opinion is aside from the fundamental idea that terrorism is often used as a empty word, so clearly there is absolutely nothing of value here and you should probably just post another link to an article that presents basic information that even Palin knows. It should go without saying that the tone of the post must be condescending.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
TheCoolinator is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 01:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Uh, terrorism is just a term used to help differentiate between actors.
I hope by actors you mean synthetic agents and or Provocateurs


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
What you write is true when you look at a lot of media and people who are not familiar with terrorism studies and such, like many politicians, but the term isn't actually some judgemental thing.
Most army veterans who are against the war are now consider a "terror" threat similar to pro-liberty groups in America. In police handbooks they tell them that property rights activists and constitutionalists may be home grown "terrorists"

Youtube it. They have recordings of news broadcasts that cover the key talking points of mass paranoia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
The US has supported terrorists and the reason that some terrorists target the US is because they feel that the US is a aggressor or supporter of a agressor.
By terrorists do you mean innocent civilians? Because that's what the American public is told who the "terrorists" are. Most individuals fightings the coalition are people who've had family killed in bombing raids or who've lost everything because of the illegal war / occupation.

There are no such thing as terrorists. There are poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for-profit corporations.



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Blah, blah, blah, passive aggressive comment.
Ok.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
The Leader is probably a real personThe Leader is probably a real person
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 02:26 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
I hope by actors you mean synthetic agents and or Provocateurs
No, I mean people or groups who are somehow involved. If it's a state using terror, attacking noncombattants and all of that good stuff, then it would be state terror. The reason state terror and terrorism are distinguished from one another is that both diverge from what is accepted as conventional war, and state actors have to be dealt with differently than non state actors, not only because of resources and law but because the motivations, as you point out, are different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Most army veterans who are against the war are now consider a "terror" threat similar to pro-liberty groups in America. In police handbooks they tell them that property rights activists and constitutionalists may be home grown "terrorists"

Youtube it. They have recordings of news broadcasts that cover the key talking points of mass paranoia.
Ok, yeah, it's not as simple as that

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
By terrorists do you mean innocent civilians? Because that's what the American public is told who the "terrorists" are. Most individuals fightings the coalition are people who've had family killed in bombing raids or who've lost everything because of the illegal war / occupation.
Yes, if you consider someone who takes up arms completely "innocent", though I think that's the wrong word to describe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
There are no such thing as terrorists. There are poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for-profit corporations.
Yes, there is such a thing as terrorists. Just because you sympathize with someone doesn't mean that they are not a terrorist. As I have written before, terrorists are not automatically bad guys. Also many terrorists are not poor, you're overgeneralizing things. In fact you seem to be only talking about terrorists in the global south. The Red Army Faction were West German marxists attempting to end their countries support of the United States and its military excursions in Vietnam. The Weather Underground were college kids. And terrorists groups don't just target imperialism. There are terrorists groups which are pro government and many groups are state supported, though those groups have largely gone by the wayside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Ok.
You didn't do it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
TheCoolinator is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 03:01 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
No, I mean people or groups who are somehow involved. If it's a state using terror, attacking noncombattants and all of that good stuff, then it would be state terror. The reason state terror and terrorism are distinguished from one another is that both diverge from what is accepted as conventional war, and state actors have to be dealt with differently than non state actors, not only because of resources and law but because the motivations, as you point out, are different.
In my research 9 out of 10 times it's government funded, provoked, or allowed to take place. Most of these "terrorist" boogeymen are known about or hired. The examples that the media use to label terrorist or terrorist states are mass propoganda to create a feeling of fear, anger, xenophobia, and paranoia.

Look up Webster Tarpley on google video. He has a few great lectures on false falg terror you should watch.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Ok, yeah, it's not as simple as that
Is that all you got? You said the term terrorism isn't used as a judgmental label yet you don't acknowledge the everyday use of the word to villify normal citizens?

YouTube the phrase home grown terrorists.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Yes, if you consider someone who takes up arms completely "innocent", though I think that's the wrong word to describe it.
You need to watch Iraq for Sale and No end in sight. Terrorstorm is a good one as well. It's all free on google video. Also Occupation 101 is another good one you should watch. All free.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Yes, there is such a thing as terrorists. Just because you sympathize with someone doesn't mean that they are not a terrorist. As I have written before, terrorists are not automatically bad guys. Also many terrorists are not poor, you're overgeneralizing things. In fact you seem to be only talking about terrorists in the global south. The Red Army Faction were West German marxists attempting to end their countries support of the United States and its military excursions in Vietnam. The Weather Underground were college kids. And terrorists groups don't just target imperialism. There are terrorists groups which are pro government and many groups are state supported, though those groups have largely gone by the wayside.
1. The Red army faction was funded by the state.

2. The Weather Underground was funded by the Ford Foundation.

Private / Governmental agencies fund synthetic "terror" attacks on the population. It's a very old story.

and I don't sympathize with anyone. Look at the war objectively.

Illegal occupation, bombing of innocents, looting of the natural resources.

^ Imperialistic tendencies.

Are people who fight imperialistic powers "Terrorists"? I highly doubt that anyone would admit it and as I stated above the groups you named were well off because they were getting private / state funding. It's right out there in the open.

There is no such thing as modern terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
The Leader is probably a real personThe Leader is probably a real person
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 03:22 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
In my research 9 out of 10 times it's government funded, provoked, or allowed to take place. Most of these "terrorist" boogeymen are known about or hired. The examples that the media use to label terrorist or terrorist states are mass propoganda to create a feeling of fear, anger, xenophobia, and paranoia.
So basically 9 times out of 10 a government is somehow involved... Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that. I don't think most terrorists are known about individually. If you're referring to groups, then yes, but individuals, no as groups need to be constantly recruiting and an advantage of terrorism is that terrorists look like everyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Is that all you got? You said the term terrorism isn't used as a judgmental label yet you don't acknowledge the everyday use of the word to villify normal citizens?

YouTube the phrase home grown terrorists.
I never said that it never ever is used as a judgemental label, I wrote that it should not be used as one and that anyone who knows anything about it does not use it as such. You're so stooped in your narcissistic paranoia that you can't even tell when someone is agreeing with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
You need to watch Iraq for Sale and No end in sight. Terrorstorm is a good one as well. It's all free on google video. Also Occupation 101 is another good one you should watch. All free.
No, you should be able to explain things by yourself. You don't need to send me links to movies that say things that I already know or have already seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
1. The Red army faction was funded by the state.

2. The Weather Underground was funded by the Ford Foundation.

Private / Governmental agencies fund synthetic "terror" attacks on the population. It's a very old story.
What state funded the Red Army faction and how were the Weather Underground funded by the Ford Foundation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
and I don't sympathize with anyone. Look at the war objectively.

Illegal occupation, bombing of innocents, looting of the natural resources.

^ Imperialistic tendencies.

Are people who fight imperialistic powers "Terrorists"? I highly doubt that anyone would admit it and as I stated above the groups you named were well off because they were getting private / state funding. It's right out there in the open.

There is no such thing as modern terrorism.
I think that it is pretty clear that you sympathize with anyone who is against the US government. And yes, terrorists groups often fight against imperialism. People who study terrorism know that. Politicians and officials who don't have their heads up their asses know that. The groups that I named were self funded. One of the ways that the Red Army Faction acquired money was through bank robberies. If they were getting funding from somewhere else they would not rob banks. Those kind of operations are incredibly risky and are barely worth the money gained so if they had a large amount of funding from a government they would not engage in such action.
You wrote terrorists were poor. I pointed out that there have been terrorists who came from middle class backgrounds. That does not influence the funding of terrorist groups unless members donate their own money.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
TheCoolinator is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 04:19 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
So basically 9 times out of 10 a government is somehow involved... Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that.
Ok, then why do you still keep calling it "terrorism" when the more correct term would be state sponsored false flag attacks?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
I don't think most terrorists are known about individually.
You need to watch Webster Tarpley's lecture on state sponsored terror.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
I never said that it never ever is used as a judgemental label, I wrote that it should not be used as one and that anyone who knows anything about it does not use it as such.
No and No, you said....

Quote:
"What you write is true when you look at a lot of media and people who are not familiar with terrorism studies and such, like many politicians, but the term isn't actually some judgemental thing."


Yes it is. If you are against the established oligarchy then you are branded a terrorist. Please look up "home grown terrorism". Anyone who challenges authority is now a threat.

They know exactly how to use this word. It's to train people to think everything is terrorism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
No, you should be able to explain things by yourself.
Like our previous conversations you seem to have trouble understanding the simplicity of the situation. Please watch those videos and learn. This is all common knowledge I'm telling you. There is nothing new under the sun.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
What state funded the Red Army faction and how were the Weather Underground funded by the Ford Foundation?
Who do you think gave money to the Red Army Faction and who does Bill Ayres work for today?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
I think that it is pretty clear that you sympathize with anyone who is against the US government. And yes, terrorists groups often fight against imperialism. People who study terrorism know that. Politicians and officials who don't have their heads up their asses know that. The groups that I named were self funded. One of the ways that the Red Army Faction acquired money was through bank robberies. If they were getting funding from somewhere else they would not rob banks. Those kind of operations are incredibly risky and are barely worth the money gained so if they had a large amount of funding from a government they would not engage in such action.

You wrote terrorists were poor. I pointed out that there have been terrorists who came from middle class backgrounds. That does not influence the funding of terrorist groups unless members donate their own money.
Your logic is very strange.

Illegal war for profit + killing of civilians + looting of natural resources = Creates anti-imperialistic forces.

They are not terrorists. Terrorists don't exist.

Back to the Red Army faction.....who do you think was funding them? Themselves? I highly doubt it.

and back to the Weather Underground.....FBI COINTEL was at work radicalizing the group. Happened to numerous groups back in the 60's-70's.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
The Leader is probably a real personThe Leader is probably a real person
Old Apr 12th, 2010, 04:33 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Back to the Red Army faction.....who do you think was funding them? Themselves? I highly doubt it.
And I love this. Yeah, because we all know how expensive food, firearms, ammunition and various household and industrial chemicals are and how difficult they are to find.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Apr 13th, 2010, 07:35 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post

There are no such thing as terrorists. There are poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for-profit corporations.
lol. So the people who attacked India where just poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for profit corporations? weird. How can you idiots not see its somewhere in the middle? Yes alot of the 'terrorists' are people who lost family members from unjust wars but that is not the only type of person blowing themselves up or atleast financing the suicide bombers. The people who lost family members are usually exploited by the real 'terrorists' who want to inflict carnage on a mass scale. This whole idea of losing family members doesn't even apply to the people like Bin laden who had their own family and country disown him for his actions.


This is from a real expert(not someone writing a term paper or watching biased documentaries) who has actually interviewed so called "black widows" in russia.

"Yet it was by no means a simple act of revenge, say Speckhard and other experts, insisting it is wrong to imagine the Black Widows as loyal widows seeking justice. (Sharipova's(one of the moscow suicide bombers) husband is believed to still be alive.) The women are in reality the products of a sophisticated process of indoctrination with deep roots in the North Caucasus, where a less conservative form of Islam has meant insurgents have few qualms about using women in their attacks. "The women who take part in terrorism do it not out of their own desire or willingness but because they are manipulated. They are given no other choice," says Yulia Yuzik, who has interviewed scores of Black Widows and their relatives in the Caucasus for her book Nevesty Allakhy (Brides of Allah).

Yuzik says the recruitment process usually begins when a loved one collaborates with insurgents and then gets killed or persecuted by Russian forces. The family is often ostracized by other members of their community, who are desperate to avoid persecution themselves, Yuzik says. "The community that welcomes you after that is the Islamist one. There you find self-respect. You are called a sister. You go to pray with them, socialize with them, and you integrate into these groups based around Islam. That in itself serves as a kind of counterforce to the security regime, a way of expressing grief and frustration."

Extremists within the community, however, can then begin to turn these emotions to the ends of terrorism, usually after an order comes down from insurgents in the mountains to prepare a suicide bomber. There are dozens of these Black Widows in the making at any given time, Yuzik says, so the Moscow subway bombings cannot simply be connected to the death of Abdurakhmanova's husband. Rather, she happened to be at the right point in the process of indoctrination when the order came down. "Once the Islamist community begins insisting you martyr yourself, they do not let up. They will pursue you forever, and you have nowhere else to go. That is the trap."

Women in such circumstances, says Speckhard, tend to be recruited because they are in search of "psychological first aid." Working most often over the Internet, the recruiters play the role of a father to women left vulnerable by abuse or other trauma. "To an extent it does help them. It's like a drug. It's short-lived. It gives you relief, but it's not a solution. And just like a drug addiction, it often ends tragically," says Speckhard, who has interviewed more than 300 perpetrators of terrorism, their victims and their loved ones for her book Talking to Terrorists.

Considering these two experts actually know what they are talking about and have actually interviewed people directly involved, I think I will take their view on things opposed to yours coolinator or leaders. If you don't realize that the real thugs are brainwashing and exploiting innocent people to commit acts of violence then you are really ignorant. Its not, for the most part, a just form of resistance against the evil western powers and legitimate payback for all the suffering they have been through.

You can argue with the experts if you like.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #9  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
TheCoolinator is probably a spambot
Old Apr 13th, 2010, 08:52 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
I just realized something, if Coolie hates the US government so much then why does he continue to support its terror by paying the very taxes that fund its imperialistic domination of the earth?
I've never said I hated anyone. I just told the truth about what private imperialistic countries do. If you assume I dislike them because of the examples I've given then it may not be that I "hate" them necessarily, more that your finally seeing whats going on and the first conclusion you draw is the feeling of dislike for the states I've been talking about.

I.E. Anglo-American interests.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
lol. So the people who attacked India where just poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for profit corporations?
No,

Those were state sponsored terrorists. It was a false flag attack AND an assassination all in one. They needed to bump off one of the chiefs of police while staging an attack create tension between India and Pakistan.


There are no terrorists. It's fake. It's like communism.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
The Leader is probably a real personThe Leader is probably a real person
Old Apr 13th, 2010, 11:38 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
lol. So the people who attacked India where just poor people standing up to an imperialistic army run by private for profit corporations? weird. How can you idiots not see its somewhere in the middle?
So you're retracting what you wrote earlier and now think that studies and experts are actually credible? Wow, you've come a long way from thinking that people shouldn't actually try to understand terrorism. Too bad you still don't know how to write a case study, though. Credible sources? What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
If you assume I dislike them because of the examples I've given then it may not be that I "hate" them necessarily, more that your finally seeing whats going on and the first conclusion you draw is the feeling of dislike for the states I've been talking about.
You haven't comprehended any of my posts. At all. The reason isn't because we ever disagreed on basic principles, but because I wasn't writing in the exact same way that you were. You're a follower, coolie. What's sad about it is that you have become one while tying not to be one. Your posts are almost verbatim what better known proponents of your opinions say or write. Like Ant, you cannot wrap your head around my posts but while the reason Ant can't understand is because of his lack of intelligence, your reason is sheer arrogance. You view the world as being against you and I'm amazed at how you disregard everything that I write, even when most of what I'm writing falls in line with your same thinking. The only reason I can conceive that would explain why you do this is because your views, or rather the views of those who you idolize, have been turned into dogma in your mind. You are the weakest of pawns, never questioning or exploring your own side of the argument, only blocking out opposition views.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
TheCoolinator is probably a spambot
Old Apr 13th, 2010, 12:01 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Playing doctor...
I know it's fun to psycho analyze people but your last post is irrelevant to the conversation.

I'm just telling you....over and over again I may add..... that state sponsored terror is the only terrorism that exists in modern times. None of the alledged terrorists have the capabilities to carry out their objectives without help from a government (US / Britain) either physically, mentally, or financially.

You can go on and on about me being a "follower" or adhering to zealous acts but when the day is done all I've been discussing here is blatant reality that can be found at any time from any computer terminal around the globe.

Like I said previously. Start with Webster Tarpley. He's a very rational man.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
The Leader is probably a real personThe Leader is probably a real person
Old Apr 13th, 2010, 12:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Like I said previously. Start with Webster Tarpley. He's a very rational man.
This is my point.

Also you don't seem to account for any terrorism that has nothing to do with the United States or the UK, such as the Tamil Tigers or those wacky Algerians. Car bombs are not expensive.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.