Shekh Jamac C/Salan: Inda'cade is behind the fall of UIC

[Karbaash_killa]

why "non state element"?? Can't a state element commit terrorism to others. Your intentionally eliminating the chances of the US administration coming under the category of terrorism.

So I’m sorry but you have distressing self-indulgent conceptions on terrorism..

[musika man]

high priest

indhocadde played a big role in the downfall of the hutu courts, cause as an islamic grassroots movement it lost credibilty to many when he an oppressive warlord was nominated as defence minister. why? cause the islamic agenda was hijacked by poverty ridden ayr tribe from the deserts in central somalia under the patronage of dahir aweis. even sheikh sharif left somalia for abu dubai cause he had a big fallout with indhocadde and that ayr dude who led the shabab forces, was his name ayrow? he came back the last two weeks after he had a deal with cia in u.a.e, only to run to their arms in nairobi. he didnt trust the ayrs who hijacked the icu agenda.

[Karbaash_killa]

What do you care Arab boi.. since to you Sheikh Shariif is another Hutu...

[musika man]

[quote="Karbaash_killa"]What do you care Arab boi.. since to you Sheikh Shariif is another Hutu... [/quote]

^^^^

the hutus are only those who came from galgaduud=ayr terrorists. did you support the hutu courts because of the ayr leadership?

sheikh sharif future somali president. support him 200%.

[Karbaash_killa]

Indha cadde attacked my uncle why would i support them for qabiil??... that shows i supported the ideology not the individuals..

Let me adapt the word to how it suits me then ..Arab azz Hutu ..damn that felt great...

[musika man]

[quote="Karbaash_killa"]Indha cadde attacked my uncle why would i support them for qabiil??... that shows i supported the ideology not the individuals..

Let me adapt the word to how it suits me then ..Arab azz Hutu ..damn that felt great...[/quote]

lol.

buddy this high priest the dude who opened this topic is a flip flopper. one leg here and another, is he o.k or is it the dhulbahante culture? you know the dhulbahante's live with beasts on either side, tigre mjertens on one side and crazy qaldans on the other? for survival. nrva rely on them. lol.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Karbash / Ismahan
The reason I do not include states within the definition is then the word ceases to have meaning - which is largely the case today. You don't like someone or their politics, call them a terrorist.

I think Ahmedinijad is slime, but he's not a terrorist. I think Chavez is slime, but he's not a terrorist.

Within the Westphalian state system, which I support, political violence is the legitimate purview of STATES. Therefore, States can't be terrorists. They can do heinous, illegal, things - like Nazi Germany did in WW II. They can commit war crimes. But they are not terrorists. And if they are, then the word no longer has meaningful definition in any kind of intellectual discourse. It simply becomes a pejorative to label someone or something you don't like.

As for Bush, he is getting a volatile reception wherever he goes. Everyone sees in him the personification of all conflict (which isn't fair) due to the war in Iraq (which is fair).

[Padishah]

The 'terrorist' label is already meaningless when applied to legitimate freedom fighter groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or the PLFP.

Remember those 'Muslim terrorists' in Miami that actually used the Bible in their 'physical' and 'mental' training. If were going to have a media circus about these guys, then the word 'terrorist' has no meaning.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"The 'terrorist' label is already meaningless when applied to legitimate freedom fighter groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or the PLFP."

"Freedom Fighter" is another term that has no meaning. It is a label given to non-state entities to legitimize them. The biggest problem I have with non-state movements is the fact that when conflicts are "won" (ostensibly against the existing leadership the "freedom fighters" are fighting) they often tend to lose their cohesiveness and begin fighting each other. This is similar to the anthropological concept of segmentary opposition. So like we saw in Somalia, where "freedom fighters" were fighting against an illegitimate regime, we ended up with chaos once the illegitimate regime was overthrown.

Among the examples you listed, I take umbrage with Hezbollah. Because as Lebanon transitioned into a repsentative form of government, Hezbollah refused to surrender its tools of political violence and also continued a campaign of political violence against a neighboring state without the consent of the state structure. Hezbollah is a huge obstacle to future governance in Lebanon.

Hamas is a different matter. I object to Hamas on two points:

a. It's DELIBERATE targetting of non-combatants which is a violation of the laws of land warfare.
b. It's refusal to recognize Israel in any form, which guarantees endless conflict for the duration of Hamas' stay in power.

I am sympathetic to non-state Palestinian movements because the Palestinians have no state. So it is impossible for them to operate within the Westphalian state system.

"Remember those 'Muslim terrorists' in Miami that actually used the Bible in their 'physical' and 'mental' training. If were going to have a media circus about these guys, then the word 'terrorist' has no meaning."

Terrorism is not uniquely a Muslim phenomenon, but Muslims are much more vulnerable to the concept precisely because they place loyalty to their faith above loyalty to their state. Thus it becomes much easier for Muslim leaders to use religion as a motivator for violence than it is other faiths. Also, in the western and Asian worlds, most of these societies have down-played faith as a private matter, or sometimes as a symbolic one, but have left religion largely out of the public discourse. In Muslim societies, it dominates the public discourse. Therein lies a serious problem which Muslims today are still struggling with. In short, for Muslims, "secularist" is often a dirty word, and someone so labelled is sometimes seen as someone that can be legitimately killed.

[Ismahan445]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Karbash / Ismahan
The reason I do not include states within the definition is then the word ceases to have meaning - which is largely the case today. You don't like someone or their politics, call them a terrorist.

I think Ahmedinijad is slime, but he's not a terrorist. I think Chavez is slime, but he's not a terrorist.

Within the Westphalian state system, which I support, political violence is the legitimate purview of STATES. Therefore, States can't be terrorists. They can do heinous, illegal, things - like Nazi Germany did in WW II. They can commit war crimes. But they are not terrorists. And if they are, then the word no longer has meaningful definition in any kind of intellectual discourse. It simply becomes a pejorative to label someone or something you don't like.

As for Bush, he is getting a volatile reception wherever he goes. Everyone sees in him the personification of all conflict (which isn't fair) due to the war in Iraq (which is fair).[/quote]

Basically, what you are telling me is that its ok for a STATE to commit war crimes, supply a state in coflict with another state(Isreal) ammunisions to kill basically people who are Muslims. Do illigal things to bomb other defensless third world countries, to justify nothing for their actions. And when you begin to have fighter for this country defending themselves, they are called terrorism. I think that is hypocrisy. The truth of the matter if terrorism can't be identified as both state and non-state elements then there is no real meaning to the word. The truth of the matter is the West are afraid of having Islamic states like Iran, thats is why they are trying to embargo their Uranium enrichment to have nuke. Why cant' Iran have nuke, if its going to use it for energy porposes. The US, Isreal and many other countries do.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"Basically, what you are telling me is that its ok for a STATE to commit war crimes, supply a state in coflict with another state(Isreal) ammunisions to kill basically people who are Muslims. Do illigal things to bomb other defensless third world countries, to justify nothing for their actions."

I do not believe I used the word "OK" in any of that context. What I said is it isn't terrorism. Carjacking's are not terrorism either, but I never said they were OK.

"And when you begin to have fighter for this country defending themselves, they are called terrorism. I think that is hypocrisy."

You are trying to put moral attributes to the terms. Don't do that.

"The truth of the matter if terrorism can't be identified as both state and non-state elements then there is no real meaning to the word."

Wrong. Exactly the inverse is true. Once you redefine it to include states, then it no longer has any meaningful definition for discourse.

"The truth of the matter is the West are afraid of having Islamic states like Iran, thats is why they are trying to embargo their Uranium enrichment to have nuke. Why cant' Iran have nuke, if its going to use it for energy porposes. The US, Isreal and many other countries do."

There are two things in the relationship with Islam occuring in the world right now.

In terms of Iran, this is a nationalist issue more than any other. Iran is trying to challenge US hegemony in the gulf and replace it with Iranian hegemony. Irans official policy is to export its revolution world wide. Starting with it's neighbors in the middle east. This is where Hezbollah comes from.

The second is a completely seperate movement, and one that frankly we are more concerned about. That is the non-state militant Islamic movement which has, as its long term goal, the re-establishment of the Khalifate, bringing all Muslims under the one Khalif, and the forcing non-Muslim states to acknowledge Muslim rule. Of course this is an unrealistic objective, but because they are using violence to achieve it, and because they are not accountable and are hiding amongst sympathetic population groups, they can sporadically do great damage and are very difficult to "defeat" in the conventional manner that term is defined. If, one day, Islamic Militants acquired a nuclear weapon and employed it, that could spell BIG, BIG trouble for the world.

[Ismahan445]

[quote="MAD MAC"]"Basically, what you are telling me is that its ok for a STATE to commit war crimes, supply a state in coflict with another state(Isreal) ammunisions to kill basically people who are Muslims. Do illigal things to bomb other defensless third world countries, to justify nothing for their actions."

I do not believe I used the word "OK" in any of that context. What I said is it isn't terrorism. Carjacking's are not terrorism either, but I never said they were OK.

"And when you begin to have fighter for this country defending themselves, they are called terrorism. I think that is hypocrisy."

You are trying to put moral attributes to the terms. Don't do that.

"The truth of the matter if terrorism can't be identified as both state and non-state elements then there is no real meaning to the word."

Wrong. Exactly the inverse is true. Once you redefine it to include states, then it no longer has any meaningful definition for discourse.

"The truth of the matter is the West are afraid of having Islamic states like Iran, thats is why they are trying to embargo their Uranium enrichment to have nuke. Why cant' Iran have nuke, if its going to use it for energy porposes. The US, Isreal and many other countries do."

There are two things in the relationship with Islam occuring in the world right now.

In terms of Iran, this is a nationalist issue more than any other. Iran is trying to challenge US hegemony in the gulf and replace it with Iranian hegemony. Irans official policy is to export its revolution world wide. Starting with it's neighbors in the middle east. This is where Hezbollah comes from.

The second is a completely seperate movement, and one that frankly we are more concerned about. That is the non-state militant Islamic movement which has, as its long term goal, the re-establishment of the Khalifate, bringing all Muslims under the one Khalif, and the forcing non-Muslim states to acknowledge Muslim rule. Of course this is an unrealistic objective, but because they are using violence to achieve it, and because they are not accountable and are hiding amongst sympathetic population groups, they can sporadically do great damage and are very difficult to "defeat" in the conventional manner that term is defined. If, one day, Islamic Militants acquired a nuclear weapon and employed it, that could spell BIG, BIG trouble for the world.[/quote]

It was a typo what i meant to say was" that terrorism can be in the for of state and nonstate, and that is when it loses its meaning.

Don't trying to simplify this by comparing it to Car thieft. This is a moral issue as well as a political issues. What happen to compassionate gov't that BUSH go elected to.

Quote''In terms of Iran, this is a nationalist issue more than any other. Iran is trying to challenge US hegemony in the gulf and replace it with Iranian hegemony. Irans official policy is to export its revolution world wide. Starting with it's neighbors in the middle east. This is where Hezbollah comes from.''Quote.

If the US can exports its revolution world wide why can't Iran. Its a two way street. Hezbollah is a political gov't just like there is christian gov't in Lebanon that gets the West's support. The problem again is its Islamic and that is why the west is paranoid.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"It was a typo what i meant to say was" that terrorism can be in the for of state and nonstate, and that is when it loses its meaning."

I understood you. And what I am saying is simple. States can not be terrorists nor conduct terrorist operations. They can conduct aggressive wars, perpetrate war crimes, perpetrate crimes against humanity. But not terrorism.

"Don't trying to simplify this by comparing it to Car thieft. This is a moral issue as well as a political issues. What happen to compassionate gov't that BUSH go elected to."

No it's not a moral issue. It is a definitions issue. All bad things are not the same thing as terrorism. Bush was elected on a compassionate DOMESTIC platform (which he failed to achieve) and what happened? 9-11 happened, that's what.

"If the US can exports its revolution world wide why can't Iran. Its a two way street. Hezbollah is a political gov't just like there is christian gov't in Lebanon that gets the West's support. The problem again is its Islamic and that is why the west is paranoid."

Iran can, and does, and we are going to resist that because it is contrary to our geo-political interests. We are in conflict right now with Iran. Isn't that obvious. And we reists their encroachment and they resist ours. It's old game. Why is the west paranoid? Are you serious?

[Ismahan445]

You are obviously talk like the kid in my Political Sci 101 course back in college but I repect your opinions even if you sound like lil' BUSH.

'I understood you. And what I am saying is simple. States can not be terrorists nor conduct terrorist operations. They can conduct aggressive wars, perpetrate war crimes, perpetrate crimes against humanity. But not terrorism.'

Do you not see the contridiction here. It has lost its meaning.


"No it's not a moral issue. It is a definitions issue. All bad things are not the same thing as terrorism. Bush was elected on a compassionate DOMESTIC platform (which he failed to achieve) and what happened? 9-11 happened, that's what"

It is a moral and political issues, when you have innocent civilians being killed for the actions of others and it goes both ways. BUSH failed both domestically and in his foreign policy period. Even if his compassionate gov't was only domestic you would think he could straigthen his country's messed up foreign policy. The reason 911 happened was for the same reason- previous foreign policy and it happened only months into Bush's time in office. This was something that was planned for a long time but could have been prevented witht the right foreign policy.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Ismahan
I believe this is called "blaming the victim".

The reason 9-11 happened is because Al Qaeda and its affiliates wish to see the American empire replaced by an Islamic empire, and therefore it attacked the US in order to start a global conflict between the forces aligned with the US and the forces of Islam. Pretty simple really.

Yes, the US supports Israel, which most Muslims think should not be allowed to exist.

Yes, the US maintains political relations with despots, which Muslims hate.

Yes, a fair portion, if not majority, of the Islamic world would like to see a return of the Khalif and would like to see US global influence severely curtialed or eliminated altogether.

Ultimately, the conflict between the west and the Islamic world goes on because you want it to. Because you are disatisfied with the status quo.

But none of this has anything to do with the definition of terrorism. You want to use the term to simply color any application of political violence as terrorism. I reject that, because it ceases to give the word any meaning. Was the German invasion of Denmark an act of state terrorism??? Using your definition, all political violence is terrorism.