Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Thanks for sharing that from an ex-soldier's perspective, Tim.
I lived/worked in Belfast for a while, so know where you are coming.
An additional question to be raised is who was arming/financing the IRA - that's relevant to me because back then, as now, terrorism and fighting it is big business and there can be political gain from it also...

And great example regarding Mandela. I would add that he wasn't just called a terrorist by the SA Apartheid government, but most news outlets worldwide called him a terrorist for decades...

GUY FAWKES: TERRORIST OR FREEDOM FIGHTER? https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/blogs/ar...
Behind the bonfires, fireworks and funny effigies, there looms an enigmatic historical figure. How SHOULD we regard Guy Fawkes?

Didn't his Catholicism play into it? That says sectarian terrorist to me.

Except for him being white, of course.

The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God

The Surprising History and Legacy of the Inquisition

The renowned historian and critic Jonathan Kirsch presents a sweeping history of the Inquisition and the ways in which it has served as the chief model for torture in the West to this day. Ranging from the Knights Templar to the first Protestants; from Joan of Arc to Galileo; from the Inquisition's immense power in Spain after 1492, when the secret tribunals and torture chambers were directed for the first time against Jews and Muslims, to the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent women during the Witch Craze; and to the modern war on terror—Kirsch shows us how the Inquisition stands as a universal and ineradicable reminder of how absolute power wreaks inevitable corruption.

Who defines 'terrorism'? http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/i...
Recent attacks have brought the use of the word to the fore, but who decides whether a crime is terrorism act or not?

Harry wrote: "Still not seen WAG THE DOG.

Trump's gotta win the Most Bollocks Publicly Stated Award."

Have you seen Wag the Dog yet, mate?

The dictionary of Google.com, presents terrorism as: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I would have initially said that it would be mainly any event which led to a wide-spread feeling of terror. But, as stated, it can be seen as terrorizing to some and not others. So who defines what a terrorist is? I guess it would be someone perusing a specific political agenda using violence or threats thereof to accomplish it. Then we should also take into account that it says against civilians. So, now that shrinks the applicable persons -

anyone who uses violence against a group of citizens of a country in order to further their political agenda, would be considered a terrorist, and any actions used to promote or further their agenda would be considered terrorism.

America's "War on Terrorism" by Dr. Michel Chossudovsky

Focuses on the use of 9/11 attack on US as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, and the militarisation of justice and law enforcement. This title states that the 'war on terrorism' is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus.

Intriguing book title that relates on the "terror vs terror" wars...I mean the "war on terror"...My apologies, sometimes I (Freudian) slip...

On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare by Noam Chomsky

Not sure if this is true, haven't checked, but this US journalist is saying 98% of deaths from US drone strikes are innocent civilian casualties...

Abby Martin "Drone Strikes Create Terrorists" | Joe Rogan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kZ0i...

Okay, I've just checked and at first glance it appears that journo might've remembered that state wrong. Maybe she meant to say 88%...Still it's pretty TERRORfying...

Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...
U.S. drone strikes have killed scores of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

In the times of asymmetric warfare, what they do is terrorism, and what you do is justified action. Any definition that involves the word "legal" will be totally biased unless it involves law from some independent sovereign entity. Saying it is legal under "our law" permits all sorts of atrocities by governments.

Ian wrote: "In the times of asymmetric warfare, what they do is terrorism, and what you do is justified action. Any definition that involves the word "legal" will be totally biased unless it involves law from some independent sovereign entity. Saying it is legal under "our law" permits all sorts of atrocities by governments. ..."

Couldn't have said it any better myself, Ian.

I'm not sure which thread to post this in
China unveils 'Super Great White Shark' helicopter prototype -

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/china-u...

Cunning Chinese. They will have the Western militaries flooded with UFO reports, and bog them down in paper since they have to investigate and respond to each or get accused of the dreaded cover-up, which leads to more paper generation.

Iranian foreign minister accuses US of 'state terrorism' as country's parliament votes to designate US forces as 'terrorists' https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/mi...

Tehran, Iran (CNN)Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called US President Donald Trump's decision to order the drone strike that killed the country's top military commander an act of "state terrorism" in an interview with CNN Tuesday.

Zarif said the Trump administration's decision to abandon the nuclear deal Tehran negotiated with world powers and embrace hardline policies against Iran "destroyed stability" in the Middle East, and he warned of worse to come if the US did not reverse course.

"This is an act of aggression against Iran and amounts to an armed attack against Iran, and we will respond. But we will respond proportionally not disproportionally," he said. "We will respond lawfully, we are not lawless people like President Trump."

Somone is a terrorist if someone with sufficient authority so designates him. Soleimani was a terrorist for no better reason than Trump, Pompeo, etc so designated him. After all, he supplied militias with munitions that killed 5,000 Americans, or so we are told. (The way Pompeo talks, Soleimani must have killed them all personally, but I find that a bit of a stretch. He may have been energetic, but that energetic.

Of course Trump and Pompeo supply the arms that kill hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, but no, that is simply good business. That Americans killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was unfortunate, but no excuse to kill Americans back. Only the bad guys are terrorists, and we are definitely the good guys because we say we are, and we have the military power to back us up. Shut up and bow down!

Ian wrote: "Somone is a terrorist if someone with sufficient authority so designates him. Soleimani was a terrorist for no better reason than Trump, Pompeo, etc so designated him. After all, he supplied militi..."

Solemani declared himself a terrorist by killing hundreds of innocent bystanders. And yes baby bush is a war criminal and should be sent to the hague for prosecution but that does not mean the iranian terrorists are not guilty too.

I doubt Soleimani considered himself a terrorist. He was fighting a war the best way he knew how. If you are a terrorist for killing bystanders during a military operation, does that make you a terrorist?

To get anywhere with this discussion we need to define exactly what a person has to do to be a terrorist. Someone like bin Laden is obvious - he intended to kill innocent people and planned to carry that out as the ONLY objective. But if we include collateral damage, then there are an awful lot more terrorists, including most air forces in WW 2. It is wrong to accuse someone of being a terrorist for fighting a war in a way where they don't line up and confront superior technology and get killed for their trouble - not being suicidal is not criminal. Are we condemning people for resisting military occupation? Was the French resistance in WW 2 terrorism?

I think you will find my definition above somewhat unsatisfactory, but also fairly describing what actually happens.

Ian wrote: "I doubt Soleimani considered himself a terrorist. He was fighting a war the best way he knew how. If you are a terrorist for killing bystanders during a military operation, does that make you a ter..."

he might not but the rest of the world did. depending which side you are on the other side is the bad guys.

there are rules of war and international agreement on what makes a terrorist even if the terrorists themselves dont realize what they are. and some of them do recognize it but choose it as their way of operating even if they knew it was illegal immoral and worse.

What about carpet bombing villages like in Vietnam? Would that be terrorism? https://youtu.be/2eHOwwdfyDc

International agreements and protocols would sem to make Trump a terrorist for ordering Soleimani's death. I don't think it is that easy, although "the other side is the bad guys" fits my definition exactly :-)

James wrote: "What about carpet bombing villages like in Vietnam? Would that be terrorism? https://youtu.be/2eHOwwdfyDc"

That depends on the international rules of law. What baby bush did was illegal but not terrorism per se. I do not think that nam was an example of terrorism as most people andor lawyers would define it.

Ian wrote: "International agreements and protocols would sem to make Trump a terrorist for ordering Soleimani's death. I don't think it is that easy, although "the other side is the bad guys" fits my definitio..."

Sorry that is your left wing opinion. International law had him as a combatant that was fighting as a terrorist and he was legally executed on the battlefield.

Where did Ian state he was left wing? If he didn't as I suspect, then why try to pigeon hole people within the left-right paradigm instead of just debating points?

Only the left wingers are claiming assassination. Everybody else is cheering the death of a nasty terrorist.

Wmba wrote: "Only the left wingers are claiming assassination. Everybody else is cheering the death of a nasty terrorist."

I'm 100% apolitical and always refuse to be pigeonholed in the illusory Left-Right paradigm, and I think it looks like assassination. Have also seen plenty of analysts on all sides of politics stating assassination. The U.S. war machine always carries on regardless of which type of political administration is in power.

Wmba wrote: "I do not think that nam was an example of terrorism as most people andor lawyers would define it...."

International rules of law can be set by the "good guys" (sometimes the biggest evildoers). Remember, certain techniques were deemed NOT to be torture by the likes of Nazis, Soviets and others, that are now definitely agreed to be methods of torture by all parties internationally. So just because current lawmakers or international bodies like the UN may presently have a narrow definition, does not mean the narrow definition will ultimately be viewed as correct.

We can therefore question what gets termed terrorism or not. The current definition of terrorism, and who is defining it, is definitely open to debate...and also highly contestable, in my opinion.

Carpet bombing all those villagers in Vietnam (and Laos which actually got the most bombs dropped on it in that war) may actually be the greatest terrorist activity of the post WW2 era. Lots of evidence to show that ordinary villagers/citizens (i.e. non-soldiers) were also being viewed as the enemy. Factor in the use of chemical warfare on ordinary North Vietnamese villagers and it all gets very hard to justify under "fair" rules of war...

How would this be viewed if a foreign enemy was bombing US towns and cities...and that beyond ordinary warfare against US soldiers, the enemy was also killing this many ordinary citizens - non-combat American men, women and children - in non-discriminate bombing of towns? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eHOw...
Note in one of those bombing raids alone, 1,600 villagers died (that's almost as many as the US civilians died in 9/11). But keep in mind there were 360,000 such bombing raids carried out on North Vietnam during that war...

So, think about it...If roles were reversed and that occurred on US soil against ordinary US citizens not involved in combat, would Americans view that as regular warfare...Or terror?

I trust that's a rhetorical question...

Iran parliament approves bill recognizing all US military as 'terrorist entity' – Global Times https://www.fxstreet.com/news/iran-pa...

“Iran’s lawmakers unanimously voted for a motion to designate the US Army and the Pentagon as terrorist organizations”, Tasnim News Agency reports.

Last hour, Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif said that the US attack on Soleimani has made the world, US more unsafe.

James wrote: "Wmba wrote: "Only the left wingers are claiming assassination. Everybody else is cheering the death of a nasty terrorist."

I'm 100% apolitical and always refuse to be pigeonholed in the illusory L..."

You need to learn what the terms actually mean. Killing a combatant in a war zone is not assasination.

James wrote: "Wmba wrote: "I do not think that nam was an example of terrorism as most people andor lawyers would define it...."

International rules of law can be set by the "good guys" (sometimes the biggest e..."

The rules were set long before these things happened. You may not be brainwashed by the libtards but you are spouting their nonsense as if you were.

James wrote: "Iran parliament approves bill recognizing all US military as 'terrorist entity' – Global Times https://www.fxstreet.com/news/iran-pa......"

ROTFLMAO. The terrorists by the vast majority of the worlds view can't declare themselves the good guys and have anyone believe it who is not also a terrorist. Look for the FBI and NSA to be watching you closely now:)

Wmba wrote: "The rules were set long before these things happened. You may not be brainwashed by the libtards but you are spouting their nonsense as if you were...."

Thanks for confirming you literally are unable to think beyond the Left-Right paradigm and that you're stuck in the Right wing mindset (which is as ludicrous as the Liberal one).

Wmba wrote: "Look for the FBI and NSA to be watching you closely now:)..."

Not just the FBI and NSA, but the CIA and MI6 are also monitoring me -- Hi, Spooks!

James wrote: "Wmba wrote: "Look for the FBI and NSA to be watching you closely now:)..."

Not just the FBI and NSA, but the CIA and MI6 are also monitoring me -- Hi, Spooks!"

Maybe also mossad, FRS , and some others :)

Wmba wrote: "Maybe also mossad, FRS , and some others :)..."

Absolutely. All the warmongers.

You are so confused about who is actually a warmonger and who is a terrorist and who are innocent people defending themselves. Does the DNC pay you to post this propaganda like the rest of their large cadre of supporters who do this all over the web? Or do you volounteer to repeat their propaganda.

Wmba wrote: "You are so confused about who is actually a warmonger and who is a terrorist and who are innocent people defending themselves. Does the DNC pay you to post this propaganda like the rest of their la..."

DNC? hahaha

You're STILL exhibiting a belief system that reflects the narrow confines of the Left-Right paradigm and literally unable to consider anything beyond that...And you're also commenting as if the entire world is USA politics only...there's a whole world out there, pal...

And just so you know: The DNC are a massive supporters of the military industrial complex. 8 years of Obama, which I heavily criticised, was one of the most militant ever. Also, the DNC would hate a thread like this as they are hugely into the War on Terror also e.g. When Trump pulled US troops out of a certain part of the Middle East recently (and said "it's time to end endless wars") the DNC supporters all criticized him saying that it will destabalize the region...

I can see you're an absolute newbie to any ideas that aren't on mainstream media...So here's some articles on this topic to consider...There is definitely very obvious forms of terrorism in this world, like ISIS and other religious zealots, then there are less reported forms which are potentially are as bad if not worse..,

State-sponsored terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-s...
State-sponsored terrorism is government support of violent non-state actors engaged in terrorism. Because of the pejorative nature of the word, the identification of particular examples are usually subject to political dispute and different definitions of terrorism.

Why is it so Difficult to Define Terrorism? - ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...

United States and state-sponsored terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

The debate over what constitutes terrorism https://theconversation.com/the-debat...

"No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance" https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92...

When it comes to defining 'terrorism,' there is no consensus https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/d...

The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in Vietnam