Is it not funny that a group of Africans discussing state terrorism are not interested in violence against civilians by African Govts?

4 Play:

Is it not funny that a group of Africans discussing state terrorism are not interested in violence against civilians by African Govts?

Is it not funny that you are taking the issue out of context and beating about the wild bush?

Why not start a thread about violence against civilians by African Govts?

@ easyy

it was clear to me from the begining that your "definition" of terrorism was meant NOT really to objectively tackle the real issues but to use another back door attempt to paint the US and Isreal with the same brush as hezbollah.

Why should the govt of Sudan be exempt from any "definition" of terrorism that is quickly used to attack the US? Simply because it is an African nation?

davidylan:

@ easyy

it was clear to me from the begining that your "definition" of terrorism was meant NOT really to objectively tackle the real issues but to use another back door attempt to paint the US and Isreal with the same brush as hezbollah.

Why should the govt of Sudan be exempt from any "definition" of terrorism that is quickly used to attack the US? Simply because it is an African nation?

Why would any intelligent person want to jump into the middle of a discussion and take things out of context

Where did I give MY OWN definition of terrorism? If you are blinded by bigotry and doctrine, dont think everyone else is; because I try as much as possible not to be that way inclined.

Tell me where my response should have a reference to Sudan or Africa. Or better still ask about TayoD the context in which I was responding to him.

I do not wish to be involved in all the insults that you guys have been throwing around at each other. I am not here to just seek to justify myself and sell one-track minded propaganda on behalf of anyone or any nation so please spare me all that if you are unable to discuss without taking things out of context.

Thanks

BTW the the definition of terrorism was from dictionary.com:

From the dictionary:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

I never tried to take any credit for that definition

Easyy:

Why would any intelligent person want to jump into the middle of a discussion and take things out of context

Where did I give MY OWN definition of terrorism? If you are blinded by bigotry and doctrine, don't think everyone else is; because I try as much as possible not to be that way inclined.

Tell me where my response should have a reference to Sudan or Africa. Or better still ask about TayoD the context in which I was responding to him.

Take it easy, hyperventilating does not help you in any way. That i have not posted since is not because i "just jumped into the middle of the discussion" as i'd been following the discussion for a while despite not posting.

You defined terrorism albeit from the dictionary ostensibly to satisfy your "objective" and mischievous desire to classify the US and Isreal as terrorist nations, when someone smartly and objectively pointed out the fact that you were conveniently forgetting Sudan (a muslim nation!) you promptly respond bby claiming this thread is not about African nations.

I cant remember that definition of terrorism being limited only to European and American nations!

davidylan:

Take it easy, hyperventilating does not help you in any way. That i have not posted since is not because i "just jumped into the middle of the discussion" as i'd been following the discussion for a while despite not posting.

You defined terrorism albeit from the dictionary ostensibly to satisfy your "objective" and mischievous desire to classify the US and Isreal as terrorist nations, when someone smartly and objectively pointed out the fact that you were conveniently forgetting Sudan (a muslim nation!) you promptly respond bby claiming this thread is not about African nations.

I can't remember that definition of terrorism being limited only to European and American nations!

I expected you to address an issue rather than chasing imaginations.

Since you have failed to see the context of the discussion and you'd rather get entangled with everything imaginable, I have no choice but to say BYE to you as I do not want to get dragged into what you have in mind.

BYE BYE

@Easyy,

How has the goalpost been changed? proof of what?
I am not going to engage in the kind of arguments which you have been engaging in with a few other people here. Just tell me exactly what I have said that is wrong and where the goalpost seems to have changed.

How the goal post was changed? Well, you began by defining terrorism as: the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians. And when I asked you to provide examples of the parties who through policy and action indiscriminately and deliberately use violence against innocent civilians, you realise that you can't stick that on either Isreal and the U.S., so you changed the goal post to a dictionary definition that is more likely to favour your predisposition. In any case, I do not think that fits, and I'll tell you why as we go.

I ask you to provide proof of your assertion that Isreal and the United States, by official policy and action are involved in the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians. Is that too much to ask? I can provide that proof for Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Quaida and the rest of the parties on your list.

Now to help you out a little bit, all you need do is show us what each party does to people under its command who have deliberately targeted civilians. In the case of the U.S., we know what happened to those involved in the shameful acts at the  Abu Graib Prison. We know of Isreal apologising for the innocent civilians that were killed during their legitimate targeting of Hezbollah positions. These are the kind of proofs or otherwise that you can also use to sustain or relinquish your position.

Your question:

Easyy (m)
United kingdom
Re: War Is Not A Solution For Terrorism
« #9 on: December 27, 2006, 06:30 PM »
________________________________________
What is terrorism?

Your own definition:

Easyy (m)
United kingdom
Re: War Is Not A Solution For Terrorism
« #17 on: Yesterday at 08:32:05 PM »
________________________________________
From the dictionary:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.  
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.  
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting

Your conclusion:

Easyy (m)
United kingdom
Re: War Is Not A Solution For Terrorism
« #21 on: Yesterday at 11:30:25 PM »
________________________________________
Quote from: TayoD on Yesterday at 11:08:44 PM
@Easyy,

Please limit your list to the parties involved in our dear Professor's write-up.

OK. Based on the definition, the terrorists are Israel, Hamas, Hezbola, United States of America, Taliban

A conclusion that had been reached well before you asked your “objective” question! A mere attempt to label the US and Isreal as terrorist nations albeit by trying to appear as sincere as hypocritically possible.

A caveat:

4 Play (m)
London,U.K
Re: War Is Not A Solution For Terrorism
« #27 on: Today at 03:37:11 PM »
________________________________________
See how he added Al-Qaeda as an afterthought.

As an African the Govt of Sudan did not leap into his mind when including Govts as terror organisation

Your “objective” response to that critical oversight (?)

Easyy (m)
United kingdom
Re: War Is Not A Solution For Terrorism
« #33 on: Today at 04:13:42 PM »
________________________________________
Quote from: 4 Play on Today at 04:09:43 PM
Is it not funny that a group of Africans discussing state terrorism are not interested in violence against civilians by African Govts?


Is it not funny that you are taking the issue out of context and beating about the wild bush?

Why not start a thread about violence against civilians by African Govts?

If the sudanese government is to be charged NOT for terrorism but mere violence against civilians despite killing and displacing more than 200,000 citizens of darfur, one wonders on what basis you include the US and Isreal as terror states. Seems to me the goalposts are not the same for all nations as long as they bow down to that idol of yours.

TayoD:

@Easyy,

How the goal post was changed? Well, you began by defining terrorism as: the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians. And when I asked you to provide examples of the parties who through policy and action indiscriminately and deliberately use violence against innocent civilians, you realise that you can't stick that on either Isreal and the U.S., so you changed the goal post to a dictionary definition that is more likely to favour your predisposition. In any case, I do not think that fits, and I'll tell you why as we go.

I ask you to provide proof of your assertion that Isreal and the United States, by official policy and action are involved in the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians. Is that too much to ask? I can provide that proof for Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Quaida and the rest of the parties on your list.

Now to help you out a little bit, all you need do is show us what each party does to people under its command who have deliberately targeted civilians. In the case of the U.S., we know what happened to those involved in the shameful acts at the  Abu Graib Prison. We know of Isreal apologising for the innocent civilians that were killed during their legitimate targeting of Hezbollah positions. These are the kind of proofs or otherwise that you can also use to sustain or relinquish your position.

You will realise if you look back at earlier posts that the definition was not given by me but by someone else. I only used it as one definition and I came up with others that I found in a dictionary. You made a mistake there.

The goal post never shifted because I did not redefine terrorism. I used the same definition to try and justify my position on all the parties which I mentioned as terrorists.

I am not a student and I do not keep record of these things that you have requested of me to provide as proof. However, you seem to be widening the goalpost when you say Israel and America came out later to apologise for their acts which border on nothing but terrorism. The question there was not whether a party apologises or not. It was about who commits those acts which can  be defined as terrorism. Israel and America certainly fall into that category as do Al Quaeda, Taleban, Hamas etc

Hey Tayo,

Is your friend alright?

he he he. Did you read the rant and the incoherence and irrelevance of his latest post?

Who exactly is his god?

Easyy:

Hey Tayo,

Is your friend alright?

he he he. Did you read the rant and the incoherence and irrelevance of it all?

Dear, i am very alright. perhaps you wanted to ask yourself that question.
Rant, incoherence, irrelevance? Maybe a summation of your own hypocrisy that you errorneously define as posts.

I simply reproduced your posts to show you up as one who chooses to dance around the truth rather than speak up for it as you pretend to do. The question is simple, why is Sudan, Somalia not included in your prestigious list of terror nations that you are so quick to label the US and Isreal?

Here is your response again: "Why not start a thread about violence against civilians by African Govts?"

What do you mean by "violence against civilians"? Is this not the same thing the US and Isreal are accused of? Are they accused of violence against soldiers?

Afam:

@Easyy,

You have not seen anything yet, these guys are ready to even blame air for not being able to translate their thoughts into meaningful contributions.

I have stopped replying posts that aim to deviate from the real issues as that is the new style on board, real shame.

Afam, you're right bro.

I am responsible for my family and I dont have time for people who minds lead astray.

I'd rather engage people who are willing to focus on issues with a good level of intelligence.

Easyy:

I am responsible for my family and I don't have time for people who minds lead astray.

I'd rather engage people who are willing to focus on issues with a good level of intelligence.

Classical response of those who would rather chase shadows and are allergic to the truth. Keep it up bro.

Hey guys,

Let's try and keep this civil. Pointing fingers won't help.

@Easyy,

You will realise if you look back at earlier posts that the definition was not given by me but by someone else. I only used it as one definition and I came up with others that I found in a dictionary. You made a mistake there.
The goal post never shifted because I did not redefine terrorism. I used the same definition to try and justify my position on all the parties which I mentioned as terrorists.
I am not a student and I do not keep record of these things that you have requested of me to provide as proof. However, you seem to be widening the goalpost when you say Israel and America came out later to apologise for their acts which border on nothing but terrorism. The question there was not whether a party apologises or not. It was about who commits those acts which can  be defined as terrorism. Israel and America certainly fall into that category as do Al Quaeda, Taleban, Hamas etc

My bad, this is the second time I think I have mistaken you for 4_Play. Sorry about that. The definition of terrorism as the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians is surely not yours. For this I apologise.

How can you make a categorical statement about a party without having any proof. Isn't that irresponsible? Even if you cannot provide references, you can at least mention a well-known incident that potrays the notion that you have put forward. For instance, Al Quaeda is a terrorist organisation in my books for the deliberate and indiscrimate killing of civilians as we witnessed on 911. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization in my books for the rockets fired into Isreal during the war even though Isreali soldiers are within their arms way.

That Isreal and the United States apologised only proves that terrorism is not their State policy, neither is it a deliberate action. For them to punish the solidiers caught out of line only proves the point further. For the other parties however, you are considered a hero for killing as many civilians as possible.  So how can you place the two in the same boat?

The unfortunate deaths of civilians is a bye-product of war. However, the difference is whether those civilians are deliberately targeted or not. Isreal even send out flyers to warn civilians of their raid.

TayoD:

Hey guys,

Let's try and keep this civil. Pointing fingers won't help.

@Easyy,

My bad, this is the second time I think I have mistaken you for 4_Play. Sorry about that. The definition of terrorism as the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians is surely not yours. For this I apologise.

How can you make a categorical statement about a party without having any proof. Isn't that irresponsible? Even if you cannot provide references, you can at least mention a well-known incident that potrays the notion that you have put forward. For instance, Al Quaeda is a terrorist organisation in my books for the deliberate and indiscrimate killing of civilians as we witnessed on 911. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization in my books for the rockets fired into Isreal during the war even though Isreali soldiers are within their arms way.

That Isreal and the United States apologised only proves that terrorism is not their State policy, neither is it a deliberate action. For them to punish the solidiers caught out of line only proves the point further. For the other parties however, you are considered a hero for killing as many civilians as possible.  So how can you place the two in the same boat?

The unfortunate deaths of civilians is a bye-product of war. However, the difference is whether those civilians are deliberately targeted or not. Isreal even send out flyers to warn civilians of their raid.

TayoD,

I made my categorisation based on actions by these parties irrespective of what they did later by way of apologies. If someone kills my child, the person is a murderer and it doesn't matter whether he shows remorse or not.

American soldiers have tortured, killed and maimed several innocent Iraqis, including men and children- that's a terrorist act. Israel deliberately targeted civilians posts killing and maiming children and women - that's a terrorist act.

Are you implying that if Al Quaeda comes out apologising tomorrow, that absolves them of being terrorists?

What some consider terrorism is consedered warfare by others. We need to be clear and not use different yardsticks for measuring things. If people are in a war situation, they use whatever means they can to try and achieve victory.

Easyy:

TayoD,
I made my categorisation based on actions by these parties irrespective of what they did later by way of apologies. If someone kills my child, the person is a murderer and it doesn't matter whether he shows remorse or not.

Wrong! the difference is intent. If I intended to kill your child, then that makes it murder. if your child died by accident due to my actions, that's manslaughter.

The difference between Isreal/US and Orgs like Alquaida is that the former target militarily important places while the latter will target any place that has minimum security where it can get a large number of people. This desperation to class the US/Isreal as terrorists is laughable at best.

Easyy:

What some consider terrorism is consedered warfare by others. We need to be clear and not use different yardsticks for measuring things. If people are in a war situation, they use whatever means they can to try and achieve victory.

It is not warfare to place a bomb in a bus or train during rush hour to kill as many people as posible. If Isreal and America used the same idealogy, they would just drop N Bombs and save themselves the time and money. You think Al-quaida will have second thoughts on using Chemical or Nuclear weapons?

Afam, you and your able professor were right but i want to point out here that the sentence is still imcomplete.
war is not a solution to terrorism, so what is the solution? is either u contact him for answer or u provide one.
at this stage now, it is obvious that the problem is on ground now so we must not discuss causes of this terrorism at the middle of it so what we are surposed to be tackling now is the solution.
remember, is seeking peace, war is not out of it. also remember, right from time, the kingdom of God suffereth voilence and only the voilent taketh it by force. nothing good comes so easy.
the world today is calling bush as if he is the author. a senior cnn news correspondence interviewed osama in 1997 and he bold told him that they are going to attack the us. according to the journalist, he asked osama how since u are far from the us and the answer was given in sept.11 2001.
clinton, the man of peace was on seat yet terroprism was on.
whatsoever the cause of origin is, let us drop our blames and talk of solution as we do not know who will be where and when it will happen. it may be anyo of us.

People forget one crucial thing,if American or Isreali intention was to kill as many civilians as they like,then they certainly have the military firepower to kill as many people without losing a single soilder.

This is one crucial thing that is lost in this debate,there exists at the moment in US military arsenal enough firepower to end opposition without having to engage in ground combat.

It is the Americans who have exercised the discretion to put their troops through the grim task of engaging in ground combat in order to minimise civilian casualties

Those who assert that the Americans are oblivious to civilian casualties,are incredibly ignorant of American military capabilities.

Terrorists on the other hand use every weapon in their arsenal,having no care for civilian casualties.When Saddam had a problem with a certain place, he had no problems gassing an entire community as he did in Halabja.

Isreal killed about 1,000 civilians in weeks of fighting in Lebanon,the Nigerian military which is significantly weaker,killed that amount in one day in Odi .

Since the intifada started in 2000,about 4,000 Palestinians have died-many of them militants-since the conflict in Darfur started at least 150,000 civilians have died yet the Sudanese do not have anywhere near the firepower of the Isrealis.

Mariory:

Wrong! the difference is intent. If I intended to kill your child, then that makes it murder. if your child died by accident due to my actions, that's manslaughter.

The difference between Isreal/US and Orgs like Alquaida is that the former target militarily important places while the latter will target any place that has minimum security where it can get a large number of people. This desperation to class the US/Isreal as terrorists is laughable at best.

It is not warfare to place a bomb in a bus or train during rush hour to kill as many people as posible. If Isreal and America used the same idealogy, they would just drop N Bombs and save themselves the time and money. You think Al-quaida will have second thoughts on using Chemical or Nuclear weapons?

I like to appeal to rationality and reason.

If someone throws a bomb into my house intending to damage the house, knowing that my child is inside, I class that person a murderer. What you seem to be saying is that because that person has come out to claim that his aim was to damage the house absolves him of blame for the murder of my child. That is ridiculous.

Warfare is defined relative to the capability of each party. If someone engages a weaker opponent and the opponent uses his teeth instead of his fists, it's his own way of defending himself from the aggression of a more powerful opponent who, in this case, seems to be responsible for defining what the rules of the warfare should be.

My aim is not to defend Al Quaeda. I will however be logical in seeing the fact that American and Israeli actions are terrorist in practice and objective.

4 Play:

People forget one crucial thing,if American or Isreali intention was to kill as many civilians as they like,then they certainly have the military firepower to kill as many people without losing a single soilder.

This is one crucial thing that is lost in this debate,there exists at the moment in US military arsenal enough firepower to end opposition without having to engage in ground combat.

It is the Americans who have exercised the discretion to put their troops through the grim task of engaging in ground combat in order to minimise civilian casualties

Those who assert that the Americans are oblivious to civilian casualties,are incredibly ignorant of American military capabilities.

Terrorists on the other hand use every weapon in their arsenal,having no care for civilian casualties.When Saddam had a problem with a certain place, he had no problems gassing an entire community as he did in Halabja.

Isreal killed about 1,000 civilians in weeks of fighting in Lebanon,the Nigerian military which is significantly weaker,killed that amount in one day in Odi .

Since the intifada started in 2000,about 4,000 Palestinians have died-many of them militants-since the conflict in Darfur started at least 150,000 civilians have died yet the Sudanese do not have anywhere near the firepower of the Isrealis.

4Play,

There is doubting the military might of America and the fact that it is able to wipe out entire nations at the battting of an eyelid. Perhaps if America does not always try to pull the wool over our eyes in it's attempt to persuade the world of it's fairness, there would be less expectations from people like me. To whom much is given, much is expected. The fact that I criticize George Bush's American policy is because of my expectations.

You are trying to classify some terrorists as being different from America and Israel as perpetuators of terrorism. Many organisations now regarded as 'terrorist' organisations were once American allies. They were built up by American support.

I wish we will all stop getting carried away by our emotions and sit down to view things objectively. It will become clear from any human perspective that George Bush is a terrorist sponsor and is responsible for signing the death warrants of several thousand innocent Iraqis and nearly 3000 American soldiers in Iraq.

I was brought up to love and admire America as a country. However, I cannot bring myself to accept the injustice of what George Bush is doing. It appears he has a mission to attack and decimate all islamic nations. Does Israel not have enough to wipe out Lebanon? Yet, when Israel was attacking Lebanon, America was shipping military armunition through UK to Israel. At the same time, it was busy attacking Syria and Iran for supporting the other party. Such hypocrisy!!!

Easyy:

I wish we will all stop getting carried away by our emotions and sit down to view things objectively. It will become clear from any human perspective that George Bush is a terrorist sponsor and is responsible for signing the death warrants of several thousand innocent Iraqis and nearly 3000 American soldiers in Iraq.

Really? How did you figure that? Bush is the reason some empty headed religious degenerates are killing each other and as many innocent people as they can in the process? If these people really wanted peace, would they still be killing each other? Remember, you said you like to appeal to "rationality and reason" is it reasonable for these people to act the way they do? Is it reasonable for you to blame Bush for these people's actions? What about the Kurds in the kurdish areas of Iraq who have not invovled themselves in the insanity of the Shites and Sunnis?

Easyy:

I was brought up to love and admire America as a country. However, I cannot bring myself to accept the injustice of what George Bush is doing. It appears he has a mission to attack and decimate all islamic nations. Does Israel not have enough to wipe out Lebanon? Yet, when Israel was attacking Lebanon, America was shipping military armunition through UK to Israel. At the same time, it was busy attacking Syria and Iran for supporting the other party. Such hypocrisy!!!

Don't be so naive. Where in warfare has that not happened? Of course the USA is going to try to use it's diplomatic muscle to help it's ally if it's at war. Now no one is saying this is right as warfare in itself to reasonable humans is worng so is all the politics associated with it. This does not make the US a terrorist state, your anger at what you consider to be hypocrisy not withstanding.

Your statement that Bush wants to attack and descimate Islamic states is a figment of your imagination. There are several Muslim countries not just in the Middle East but elsewhere in the world that have benefitted from huge American and Western investment as a whole. There are also many Muslim States all over the world that have very friendly relations with America. Go tothose countries and you will see American architecture, cars and influence everywhere. Some Muslim countries are even allied to America in it's war on terror as they have themselves been victim or come under threats of terrorists (real terrorists, not those you call terrorists) themselves.

Anyways we are discussing terrorism here and the fact you mentioned weapons shipment is a classic example.
America was shipping smart missles to hit specific targets when Isreal could very well have used cheaper, much more plentiful, dumb bombs. Isreal did not have enough of these missiles to begin with. Of course we already knew that because the Isrealis were not the ones preparing for war.
Iran and Syria were shipping upgraded, outdated unguided rockets to Hezbolla to simpy hit Isreal. (The whole of Isreal seen as a target). Even hezbolla themselves tried to use the idea that Isreal will not bomb civilian buildings so they stored their rockets and set up firing positions from these areas.
Unfortunately for the fuckheads, when you do that, that building then becomes a military target. Hezbolla's line of thinking was that Isreal would not attack such locations because they are not and do not want to be seen as attacking civilians.
You said you to appeal to "rationality and reason". I'll leave that to sink in.

-------------------------

In your reply to my previous post where you said you like to appeal to rationality and reason. You then said

Easyy:

Warfare is defined relative to the capability of each party. If someone engages a weaker opponent and the opponent uses his teeth instead of his fists, it's his own way of defending himself from the aggression of a more powerful opponent who, in this case, seems to be responsible for defining what the rules of the warfare should be.

Does that mean that if the isreals some how lost their military technological superiorty over the hostile Arab states that it would be ok to use whatever means avaliable to them to defend themselves from attack? Including of course, massacaring as many enemy civilians as hmanly possible?
Remember, we're being rational and reasonable here.

to start with, this thread is an incomplete statement as the poster should have ended up saying what the solution to terrorism is and then let us know his position and solution.

for a better understanding, let us know what is terrorism?
let us know who and who are involved.
what is their interests?
whose interests are they fighting for?

if we look back at the man called Yasser Arafat, he was sentenced to death many times by his own country and people not by Isreal or America

saddam has similar trace and his coming to power was not by public choice rather through voilence.

in the case of Osama, he has been condemed and decleared wanted by his own country so if mandela who was fighting for the black south africans could be condemed by this same group one will be forced to believe that he has some other purposes for his fight but the black south africans not withstanding their ordeal were solidly behind him as he was fighting a real course.

if you are opportuned to stay with a real muslim, he will not tell u that violence is allowed in quran. most poor muslims are used for all these suicide bombings with empty promises. if they die in the war, they are going to inherit too much virgins in heaven so does it mean that the rich ones wouldn't want to have virgins over there.

Osama is a western man as he has western education and was under the american cia but one of his doctrines in Afghanistan was against any form of western education.

it will be nice if we ask ourselves where are all their family memebers living even till date? where do they have all their funds and investments till date?

arafat's accounts was investigated agaisnt their beliefs of the palestines after his death as his accounts in france were unbelievably fat.

if the so called terrorists are fight muslim course, what happed to the attack in Jordan in a wedding ceremony of muslim brother and sister? what about attacks on mosques in different locations.

if bush is the problem then what about attacks in kenya and tanzania offices of american embassies?

nigeria is begining to raise terrorists so my prayer is that whosoever supports the act will soon feel the heat.

my dear afam, if u know the course of terrorism then go ahead and let us know as even koffi annan did not find this out till he left. am sure your name will go into the guiness book as soon as you do that.

chidichris:

to start with, this thread is an incomplete statement as the poster should have ended up saying what the solution to terrorism is and then let us know his position and solution.

for a better understanding, let us know what is terrorism?
let us know who and who are involved.
what is their interests?
whose interests are they fighting for?

chidi,

I'm still waiting on you to address the four points you raised

War is never the solution to terrorism l believe there other better ways to sort that out.

chidichris,

I will respond to your questions when you begin to organize your thoughts properly as doing otherwise will be a waste of time.

It seems what Afam thinks on issues you take interest in matters so much to you.

@ AFAM give us the solution for Terorism

Niky, in exchange of opinion and ideas we can learn. Bush may be acting in ignorance but somebody somewher knows the solution and to you, what do you think are the other ways to this terrorism?

Easyy,
the four points i raised here are just part of the whole issue and of which they are the points i keep on looking at whene ever i want to know reasons for attacking places and people.

the first issue here is terrorism- and by simple definition i want to see this as a legal and violent act or advanced level of rebel on government and individual which know no bounds it is unfortunate that most people have tied this act to islam but i still have my reservations on this as most terrorists have been sentenced to death by certain governments headed by muslims too so i think the act is beyound religion.

if we want to know who and who that are involved, one will definitely see indidual businessmen playing the lead roles here. i still feel that sponsorship is vast and most are based on force. we are having a reported case of sponsorship in nigeria where funds were traced to an account of a nigerian businessman by a terrorist group.

on the third issue, i look at their interest. in most of their campeigns they preach religion and occupation. they call it Jihad but the Jordianian president proved this wrong when he was condeming a suicide attack in a wedding in jordan. the wedding was organised and attended by muslims so whose interest was to be protected. the 9:11 attack was in such a public place that almost all the religions of the world were involved. several suicide attacks on mosques in iraq and other places. hamas and fattah who is fighting who. i wouyld expect u to see or consider on your own what their interests as in the midst of these problems, Pakistan and Afghanistan under the control of the so called terrorists move well with their business which is Drugs and the issue of drugs traficking becomes a minor and it is obvious most of us know that the leaders of all these terrorists groups are drug barrons and are well made money wise and can spend any amount to make the war go on and aid their businesses to flourish.

do let me know any of these issues you would need further clarifications and i will surely reffer you to places and issues to read.

chidichris:


Easyy,
the four points i raised here are just part of the whole issue and of which they are the points i keep on looking at whene ever i want to know reasons for attacking places and people.

the first issue here is terrorism- and by simple definition i want to see this as a legal and violent act or advanced level of rebel on government and individual which know no bounds it is unfortunate that most people have tied this act to islam but i still have my reservations on this as most terrorists have been sentenced to death by certain governments headed by muslims too so i think the act is beyound religion.

if we want to know who and who that are involved, one will definitely see indidual businessmen playing the lead roles here. i still feel that sponsorship is vast and most are based on force. we are having a reported case of sponsorship in nigeria where funds were traced to an account of a nigerian businessman by a terrorist group.

on the third issue, i look at their interest. in most of their campeigns they preach religion and occupation. they call it Jihad but the Jordianian president proved this wrong when he was condeming a suicide attack in a wedding in jordan. the wedding was organised and attended by muslims so whose interest was to be protected. the 9:11 attack was in such a public place that almost all the religions of the world were involved. several suicide attacks on mosques in iraq and other places. hamas and fattah who is fighting who. i wouyld expect u to see or consider on your own what their interests as in the midst of these problems, Pakistan and Afghanistan under the control of the so called terrorists move well with their business which is Drugs and the issue of drugs traficking becomes a minor and it is obvious most of us know that the leaders of all these terrorists groups are drug barrons and are well made money wise and can spend any amount to make the war go on and aid their businesses to flourish.

do let me know any of these issues you would need further clarifications and i will surely reffer you to places and issues to read.

I need to point out that your definition is rather incomprehensible to me. That is not to say that it is meaningless anyway

In your submission afterward, do you not think that Bush's terrorist acts against the people and Government of Iraq also falls into the category of terrorism? Or do you only see terrorism where the West is not involved? Your submissions are directed only at one end of the divide and smirks of a bias.

My Dear, life is a process of learning. please in your own terms let me know what you think about terrorism.
again, remember the thread is all about the solution to terrorism.
also, do not forget what and how the americans go into iraq for.
i would want to remind you that what is happening in iraq today has been waiting for long. remember in 1982, a group attacked saddam and were afterwards paid for it and you would believe here that if not for fear, they were waiting for revenge.
on the other side, the people of saddam are not comfortable with the new american installed government and have every need to fight their way back to power to avoid paying the prize of saddams brutality.
if you are saddam that saddam does not deserve what he gets, then i would want to know your reasons and i will share the pleasure of pointing out to you at least ten reasons for him to walk through the same gallow which he had sent people through.
God is the creator of all things and for those who take lives most times pay with their own lives as it is written that those who live by sword, die by sword.
will saddam be a sane man for his actions in invading kuwait and outlining his next victims to include saudi and uae. has anyone taken time to know how many lives lost in the iran and iraq war?
please in your explainations, do not forget to tell me whose airspace the us used and in which countries of the gulf the us army have their base.
aslo do not forget to tell me the first country to congratulate the killing of Saddam.
all these terrorism issues have been their before the coming of bush and do not remember a cnn correspondence interviewed bin laden in 1997 and he told him that they are planning an attack on the usa but the correspondance was wondering the possibilities of such attack from such distance but the answer only came on 9/11,2001. please check out how many us embassies that were attacked before the bush administration and you know what? from time, the kingdom of God suffereth violence and only the violent taketh it by force.
it is obvious that what goes arround will surely come arround one day.
i will be happy if u let me know ur views