Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on April 22, 2005, 09:46:23 am
-
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21598697.htm
She nailed it right on the head.
-
Wow, someone still knows what "terrorism" means. Italy wins the prize. Of course I would make the argument that war is terrorism, but that's an ideological issue.
-
Yep, but that's old news.
The judge had the visit of government discipline inspectors and the ruling has been passed to another court.
The xenophobe dictatorship is not out (yet... We're going to get rid of berlusconi in 2006!)
EDIT: BTW, the reuters article is quite precise except for the date, must learn to read before posting :D
-
Yeah, I know that it's an old ruling, but as I understand it its making headlines now because the reason for her ruling was just released recently.
-
Very interesting. But will it really affect anything?
-
Not with the current italian government.
-
From what I've heard, the Italian government is somewhat like New England weather-- if you don't like it, just wait a minute.
-
Italy... home of the Mafia... and they get it right. Nice.
-
Thanks for your prejudice.
The current government lasted over 4 years for your information...
-
Geez, that was barely even a negative remark....
I'll insult my government if it will make you feel better. I'm good at that.
-
It wasn't the insult at the government, since i quite oppose the current one but the referral to the supposed instability of the previous ones...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Thanks for your prejudice.
The current government lasted over 4 years for your information...
Yeah, but wasn't there something in the region of 50 or so in the time since WW2 before it?
-
So what?
We had an highly democratic, pro minority proportional system.
It required several political adjustments but wasn't so bad, at least compared to the damage done since we reverted it...
-
The judge makes a good point.
-
The judge was quite right. Shame her career may be ended due to it.
-
Wait a sec, I'm confused (or just underinformed). Hasn't this always been the definition of terror? Violent acts against those unable and unequipped to officially (Uncle John's shotgun on the top shelf doesn't really count) defend themselves?
Close to home examples would be that any Palestinian violence against civilians we consider terrorism. However, Palestinian violence against military targets is... well, not terrorism, that's for sure. A skirmish? Freedom fighting? Whatever.
We've never had a problem with that kind of distinction in Hebrew simply because the word most commonly translated as "terrorist" by those who don't know better is "mechabel", from the same root (and thus the same basic meaning) as the word "chabala". "Chabala" is a term one would use to describe, say, a head injury (concussion, etc). "He has chabala to his head." Simply means "damage".
Hmm, now that I think of it, I don't know if we have a proper word for terrorism - just like we don't have a proper word for assasination.
-
In the US, "terrorists" are those people out to destroy the US for its basic freedoms, civil liberties, goodwill towards other nations, economic prosperity, and way of life. That's apparently why the US administration has been taking away and tearing down the first four.
Edit: And for anyone prone to jumping to conclusions, I'm not saying that members of the US administration are terrorists or accusing them of being part of some 9/11 conspiracy. :rolleyes:
-
Nah, Bush reduced the vocabulary a bit...
Dissent = Terrorism.
Learn the neolanguage citizen, you are ungood.
-
doubleplus ungood I'd say
Anyway, Sarnie, the problem is in the West we're constantly bombarded by the media with what "terrorism" is and unfortunately thanks to the current administration on both sides of the pond, that definition is anyone who opposes us.
-
For example, the guys who attacked the USS Cole are almost always reffered to as terrorists. Even groups like FARC are often branded that. It's very dangerous, because it threatens to completely politicize the language, which is exactly the sort of thing that best serves to limit the scope of discourse.
Hell, even protestors and journalists are being called terrorist with increasing regularity, albiet only in some circles..
-
When money and politic meets the children are always abominations.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
For example, the guys who attacked the USS Cole are almost always reffered to as terrorists. Even groups like FARC are often branded that. It's very dangerous, because it threatens to completely politicize the language, which is exactly the sort of thing that best serves to limit the scope of discourse.
Hell, even protestors and journalists are being called terrorist with increasing regularity, albiet only in some circles..
IIRC FARC are normally referred to as rebels / guerillas in the UK media anyways, although I believe there's accusations of their involvement in a couple of bombings (market bombing and bombing of a club in Bogota) as well as kidnappings.
If you look at the ruling itself; it's essentially the same logic which means - for example - the various resistence groups in Nazi-occupied europe are not themselves considered terrorists.
I think the US in particular has switched to define any attack on their military or occupational assets - specifically in Afghanistan and primarily Iraq - as terrorism. However, what this ruling would indicate (if aplied) would be that only attacks aimed at civillians would be considered terrorism; the suicide bombing of the mess tent in Mosul would, for example, be considered as legitimate resistance (which IMO is a fair enough conclusion), as would the various roadside bombs and I think attacks - perhaps even the kidnappings and executions - on the Iraqi army (i.e. comparable to attack upon the Vichy government in WW2 France). Bear in mind that the legitimacy of an occupation is dependent upon the eye of the beholder with regards to this; for some or all insurgents the idea of the US invading and taking control of Iraq will entice exactly the same reactions as those of the resistance in countries invaded by the Nazis.
-
Terrorism is a tactic, not an army. Terrorists are people who use Terror to compel action in other people. Someone who lives next door can be a Terrorist, however, someone who shoots a enemy soldier in a Warzone is a combatant, not a Terrorist.
If the current definition were true, the every bridge destroyed, every ammunition dump sabotaged in Germany during WWII using covert ops, was Terrorism and the allied troops were Terrorists.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
IIRC FARC are normally referred to as rebels / guerillas in the UK media anyways, although I believe there's accusations of their involvement in a couple of bombings (market bombing and bombing of a club in Bogota) as well as kidnappings.
If you look at the ruling itself; it's essentially the same logic which means - for example - the various resistence groups in Nazi-occupied europe are not themselves considered terrorists.
I think the US in particular has switched to define any attack on their military or occupational assets - specifically in Afghanistan and primarily Iraq - as terrorism. However, what this ruling would indicate (if aplied) would be that only attacks aimed at civillians would be considered terrorism; the suicide bombing of the mess tent in Mosul would, for example, be considered as legitimate resistance (which IMO is a fair enough conclusion), as would the various roadside bombs and I think attacks - perhaps even the kidnappings and executions - on the Iraqi army (i.e. comparable to attack upon the Vichy government in WW2 France). Bear in mind that the legitimacy of an occupation is dependent upon the eye of the beholder with regards to this; for some or all insurgents the idea of the US invading and taking control of Iraq will entice exactly the same reactions as those of the resistance in countries invaded by the Nazis.
As well it should.
The definition of the term occupation is very simple, meaning foreign troops stationed on sovereign soil. Now the legitimacy of that occupation depends on many factors, like whether they were invited by the government, and whether that government represented the will of the people at the time of the invitation; how much of the populace wants the troops there; their level of agression, control over internal matters and a whole slew of other things.
For example, if the UN sends troops into Sudan, that would still be an occupation, but a far more legitimate one than the US in Iraq, or the Russian one in Chechnya or the UN/EU in Bosnia.
edit: Depending on where you look, narco-terrorists being applied to FARC is not uncommon, at least in my experience, though to their credit most media outlets have avoided that particular pitfall.