More about Madrid 'terrorist's' flat explosion

by Caravaggio Thu Apr 22, 2004 19:17

Why do you put the word terrorists in inverted commas? Are you implying that they were not terrorists?

by Someone Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:59

The word 'terrorist' has been emptied of meaning, Caravaggio. Specially when those who use the word keep pointing the finger away from them while commiting their horrendous 'legitimate' crimes. It is like the Spanish Inquisition carrying out their witch hunt, imposing their definitions of evil that no one else knew but them, inflicting horrendous tortures the devil they spoke about was probably watching himself in amazement.

The real terrorists don't wear balaclavas, but expensive suits and ties, and appear well-groomed on TV with their mouths full of bullshit, and fill in Peace societies too, cos they need to make sure there's no much thinking and questioning going on outside the paths the lay out for us.

by shocked and awed Fri Apr 23, 2004 20:01

I agree with "someone" in certain things!

To think that because someone wears a suit and appears on TV and is "elected" they are above "terrorism". In my view anyone who takes life is a terrorist. Those who bombed Madrid are terrorists, theose who bombed Iraq are terrorists, those people who send young people from america to die in an illegal war are terrorists. I dont believe all the conspiracy theories that float around but I do believe that the world is changing for the worse. There is no difference between Osama Bin Laden and current so called elected regimes. Currently the west argues against the human rights abuses in China etc yet "democracies" such as the US and Israel carry out state sanction killings and assinations. yes rantissi was a Hamas leader and terrorist but killing him is an act of terr osism that breds more killing. How can we say we are bringing democracy to Iraq when the countries leading the fight do not listen to their own people who oppose the war. Yes Saddam was an evil dicatator but we, the West put him there and kept him there, like Bin Laden he only became a problem when he turned and bit the hand that fed him.

To ask why do you say "terrorism" in inverted commas, show I think that we need to get away from the view of the badly dressed, haggred balaclava covered kalashnikov carrying terrorist and see that terrorists take many forms. War in all forms is terrorism, killing and destruction is terrorism, capatalism is terrorism, religion is terrorism, everything is terrorism if we let it and refuse to see that exising norms and beleifs need to be questioned. I believe that each soldier killed in iraq, each person killed in conflict everywhere deserves the actions of individuals to qustion and try to stop these things happening. If we continue to argue over what is a terrorist then people will continue to die whether wearing american uniforms of civilians in palestine.

by Smelly Fart Sat Apr 24, 2004 04:50

It's getting more obvious this was an attack by agents of the CIA to terrorise the Spanish into voting for the War on "terror".

No Pasaran!!

by Caravaggio Mon Apr 26, 2004 15:39

The word terrorism has not lost it's meaning. It has been defined as the unlawful use or threatened use of systematic force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often to achieve ideological or political ends.

My question was not whether the actions of the coalition of the willing are illegal (and therefore may be defined as terrorist activities). I simply ask why do you put the word terrorist in inverted commas when referring to those that carried out the attacks on Madrid. To do so implies that you don't believe that the perpetrators were terrorists. as does your sentence: 'The real terrorists don't wear balaclavas, but expensive suits and ties, and appear well-groomed on TV...' *. Does this mean that you really don't consider the Madrid bombers real terrorists?

I am not arguing in favour of the recent activities of the Americans and their allies but I do take exception to someone whose anti-American stance is so pronounced that it allows them to view the cowards who killed 200 innocent Spaniards as anything other than terrorists.

BTW:
• War in all forms is not terrorism,
• Killing and destruction is not necessarily terrorism
• Capitalism is not terrorism
• Religion is not terrorism
• Everything is not terrorism

If we are to carriy out a political debate then we must have accepted dictionary definitions so that we all know what we're talking about. You can't just go inventing your own definitions whenever it suits.

As for the dude who thinks that the CIA were behind the attacks... Jesus H. Christ. That is really daft.

* NB: correct use of inverted commas.