₦airaland Forum

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.

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.

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.

Who exactly is his god?

Hey Tayo,

Is your friend alright?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

As much as I do not know too much about Somalia and the politics thereof, it appears that some people are so indoctrinated that they will oppose anything that is not based on their own religious beliefs. The absoluteness of the hatred for moslems will also create hatred within the moslem community for christians.

I see a lot of people who call themselves christians and I feel certain that Jesus Christ would scatter them off by Himself if He were to appear now hence showing the hypocrisy of the positions holding unto hatred while claiming to belong to Christ.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,

4 Play:
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

Why would I think of the Government of Sudan?

The context of my reply was- Please limit your list to the parties involved in our dear Professor's write-up.

Besides, I never at any time claimed that I could name everyone/organisation engaged in such acts. Do you just like to argue?

I like to contribute and learn at the same time, if there's anything to learn. My life is not a one-way unthinking traffic and I dont get carried away so easily by any ideology or doctrine so much as to lose my God-given ability to reason.

4 Play:
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

AFTERTHOUGHT

I'm really scared of the kind of mind you have for saying that's an afterthought?

Why would anyone think in such way? I missed out something and I was reminded, then, it is an afterthought.

Ridiculous. I do not like to engage in that kind of argument you seem to cherish so please don't go there as I wont follow.

TayoD:
@Easyy,

Now you have changed the goal post, and still unable to sustain your point with proofs.

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.

TayoD:
@Easyy,
Can you please share with us how Isreal and the United States, by official policy and action are involved in the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Israel has been involved in indiscrimate killings of civilians(women and children included) including journalists in Palestinian territory over the years in it's quest to 'tame' Hamas followers while also controlling the nation of Palestine. Israel has also been involved in killing lots of Lebanese civilians on the strength of their claim to be chasing Hezbolla.

America has been involved in terrorising Iraqis into submission in the attempt to ensure political influence in the Middle East. American soldiers have raped, tortured and maimed several Iraqis during this process.

Afam:
@Easyy,

Add Al Qaeda to the list so that you will not be accused of bias or support for Osama.

Afam, cheers bro.

Al Quaeda should be included

TayoD:
@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.

Mariory:
@Ejarune
You wanted to know? View the quote below for one reason.

Some of us are still stuck in a moment hundreads of centuries in the past. Blaming others for our situation. Look at India, look at the new SE Asian Tigers. All these countries except China were once Colonies of Western Europe as well. Yet they are striving high and we are still talking nonsense about the "white man's" conspiracy against Africa.

I dont see where that post blame others for Nigeria's woes

TayoD:
@Easyy,While i will not like to pre-empt your destination, can you kindly tell us the parties that are involved in the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians.

I'm sure you are smart and you know that I cannot name all the parties in the world that are involved in the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians.

Perhaps if you narrow it down and be more specific, I'll be able to give it a go

4 Play:
This is hysterical mumbo jumbo.

If the US is trying to decimate the muslim people,that must explain why they were at the forefront of providing humanitarian relief in the aftermath of the earthquake in Pakistan and the tsunami in Indonesia hence saving thousands of muslims lives,for we all know that the best way to decimate a people, is to help them in the time of need.

It must also explain why the US spends a lot of money in development aid to muslim countries

Since u don't consider that the US has any obligations to help in somalia,that should put to rest any questions as to what the US is doing to help in Somalia

I await with interest ,to see the results of the efforts of the rest of the international community to put an end to the crisis in SOMALIA.We have already seen the lilly livered efforts of the AU monitoring team in Darfur.I wonder why the people of Darfur keep calling for US intervention

Spending a lot of money to do something does not mean that you cannot destroy it again in other subtle ways.

It wont be long till Pakistan is again a part of the war monger's 'axes of evil'. He courts Pakistan now because he needs Pakistan's support for the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. It's a marriage (agreement) of convenience.

Was Osama Bin Ladin not created by the US? Was the Taleban not created by the US and it's allies? Who's fooling who?

Why do you think the people of Darfur keep calling for US intervention? It's because the US is powerful enough to intervene decisively and stop all the bloodshed there but most people know that George Bush isn't interested in that. There's no real interest in Somalia for the US.

davidylan:
Neither are they interested in stopping the carnage in Darfur, neither did they do anything to stop the genocide in Rwanda. They did not stop the civil war in SierraLeone, Burundi, Congo DR, Liberia. Neither are they bothered about the rudderless nation of Somalia nor are they bothered by the constant conflicts in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

I already stated that they do NOTHING; so what exactly is your point?

However, they do NOTHING and they do not contribute to carnage and destruction of other lands. Neither do they sponsor terrorists who turn round to attack them in future.

I hope that clears the air on that.

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.

TayoD:
@4play,

So are you in disagreement with the fact that terrorism cannot be used to settle land disputes?

What does terrorism mean?

We may be able to determine better who is a terrorist if we define terrorism

4 Play:
I define terrorism as the indiscriminate and deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians

Thanks. I'm waiting for others to respond.

Hopefully, no one will jump ship at this point

TayoD:
@Easyy,

What do you understand by terrorism?

I asked first: are you shying away from defining it?

davidylan:
Exactly what they were created to do: NOTHING!

Yes. They do NOTHING. They do not invade any nation on false pretences either. They dont attack people for being different. They dont go into other countries to kill and maim innocent women and children. They dont attack other nations to capture their men and sexually molest them in prisons.

4 Play:
@Eassyy

America remained in Iraq longer than in Somalia partly for the fact that the Islamic terrorists think ,as Bin Laden noted, that the ease with which the US fled Somalia ,shows that the American people are too soft and cannot withstand casualties.Having made that mistake before,they do not intend to make it again.Why should they leave unfinished their mission in Iraq,for a new mission in Somalia

For someone who is hypercritical of the US ,it is funny that when crisis arises,the first question u ask is what is America doing.That seems to assume that America has an obligation to intervene wherever there is a major problem.When they actually intervene,u criticisce them or conveniently forget that they helped.

My question is,what is the rest of humanity doing,what is the EU,China,the AU and Russia doing,why must it be only the US that gets asked that question?

if the world wants America to assume most of the responsibilty ,then they must be prepared to give America special privileges and stop complaining of the US being too powerful.Anyone critical of American power must be prepared to step in and act

I do not believe America has an obligation to intervene in any other Nation's affairs and I'm sure Americans dont see it that way too. I would have expected you to understand that my point is that America is being hypocritical about it's so called unsolicited 'beneficial intervention' in the affairs of other Nations.

America is trying to give itself the responsibilty. No one did!!! No one is critical of American power. I am critical of the current American government's bullying of Islamic Nations and the wasting of human (Islamic) lives as though they were sub human. I also sense a that the development will shift to the persecution of non-whites as well. George Bush's government has a hatred of anyone who is different and it wont be long till they come after people who have different colour of skin(if he is able to complete is attempted decimation of Islamic people and all different cultures)

TayoD:
America may not be in Somalia right now, but a lot, and I mean a lot of Somalis have been relocated to the U.S. as refugees of the war. Can you please tell me what other countries are doing?

What benefits does America gain from this except that the tax payers have to foot extra bills to cater to the needs of these refugees who are by the way, mostly muslims. Do you still question the U.S.'s motives?

OK. I see what you mean
Those who can flee can come and offer cheap labour while the others kill themselves. BTW there are very many poor nations who take lots more refugees than America does.

davidylan:
Terrorism is not the solution to settle land disputes!

What is terrorism?

TayoD:
Neither is terrorism the solution to "perceived" injustice. Our dear Professor sure forgot to mention that bit.

What exactly is terrorism?

davidylan:
More exhibition of ignorance. America actually went to Somalia and left after the ignominous murder of several US peacekeeping soldiers.

Absolutely nonsensical!

Is America in Somalia now? NO
What did America do in Rwanda to stop the genocide last decade? NOTHING
What is America doing in any country that is non-Islamic and has no oil at the moment, even in the face of carnage and denumanisation? NOTHING