Terror Organizations: When will they be a legitimized group for world change?

Originally posted by xmotex
If they're pro-US they're "freedom fighters", if they're anti-US they're "terrorists."

In the eyes of the Right, it's as simple as that.
These people are stuck in the stone age, evolutionary throwbacks for whom tribal loyalties (morphed into nationalism over the millenia) outweigh anything else.

They'll mourn the dead of 9-11 with crocodile tears and phony outrage, but if it had happened in Tehran or Shanghai or somewhere else people they don't like live, they'd be the first to celebrate.

911 at least the NYC part of it was a civilian target hence why it is almost universally called terrorism, the pentagon attack was an act of war because it was a military/govt target.

Even American "terrorist" have made that distinction, Timothy McVeigh targeted a government agent he killed a lot of kids and stuff but it was collateral damage of a Government/Military target. I find more merit (still guilty of mass murder BEFORE ANYBODY GETS ALL IN A BUNCH) than say a nightclub full of 20 year olds or a NON GOVERNMENT financial center and yes even though I have major issues with mass religion I do think it would be an outright terrorist act to attack one. Maybe attacking a hospital as dismantleling infrastructure in extremely dirty and no holds bar war (carpet bombings/ tactical WMD, burning bridges poisoning water). Even the Puerto Rican "terrorist" of the 70s target mostly cops/government buildings (not 100% sure, feel free to correct me).


besides most of the geneva conventions tend to benifit the more industrailize and richer nations, there is no real non-self defeating ways to fight back against a better equip nation without so called terrorist tactics. They may make war a more civilized thing but come on if we were really civilized in the first place we would be able to avoid most major direct arm conflicts except for your occation wetworks, SF ops and precision bombings here and there if anything.

Well what I was in pursuit of with this thread was not to answer any of the questions most of you have been dealing with so far because we've done that to death here at ATS.

Corporations that indirectly kill thousands every year in the USA from pollution are in effect terrorizing communities for financial gains. They are also legitimate entities, aware of their actions, but covertley conceal them and corrupt our government to overlook them.

Terror Organizations on the other hand seek a political goal. This doesn't interest our politicians unless the terrorist agree with them. In many cases around the world and in our past we can see the US supporting terrorists for political gain because the terrorist further the US agenda in the region and are in alignment with it's iterests.

So obviously, the terror of today by Al-qaida and company will never be legitimate because they do not help the US in it's interets (or do they? that could be argued a deep conspiracy). Anyway, as a whole it seems the US has double standards when it comes to legitimizing groups who use terror.

The point is this. The only terror organziations that will be legitimized are the ones the USA agrees with.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by 00PS]

Originally posted by Oblivions void
besides most of the geneva conventions tend to benifit the more industrailize and richer nations

Have you ever heard of a saying "he who makes it may break it"?

Neither have I but I just made it up.

Seems to me that the USA made an insurgency and freedom fighter group or many of them around the globe and as such can break them when they want. Label them as terrorists and boom that's what they are.

Odd it's what they've always been but as I tried to explain previously, it's not about being a terrorist. It's about being legit. And those who are legit are the ones in bed with the white house.