Recently I was reading an article that started the mental masturbation…..it is about the capture by Iran of a “Good Terrorist”……thinking…….first what is a terrorist?
The FBI has a definition:
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Okay that is pretty much is what most Americans would say is the definition of the act of terrorism…unless of course you are a right wing dipstick then anyone with a weird sounding name is terrorist……thank God they are in short supply…..
The article I am referring to is one written by Ray McGovern:
The Iranian government is celebrating the capture of Abdolmalek Rigi, the leader of a violent group called Jundullah (Arabic for Soldiers of God), which Tehran says is a terrorist organization supported by the United States, Great Britain, and Israel.
Jundullah is one of several groups that have been conducting bombings and other violent attacks against Iran’s Islamic regime with the aim of knocking it off balance.
But Jundullah has been spared that designation, a possible indication that the U.S. government views it as a valuable asset in the face-off against Iran, or in the parlance of the “war on terror,” as one of the “good guys.”
Gen. Mizra Aslam, Pakistan’s former Army chief, has charged that the U.S. has been supporting Jundullah with training and other assistance. But the U.S. government denies that it has aided Rigi or his group.
Now this is where I am having a problem……does the use of a defined terror act become alright because the person is a “friend” to the US or the West? To me it is bullsh*t! Anytime violence is used on an otherwise innocent population it is TERRORISM….do not give a crap who supports who….
To me this is just freakin’ arrogance……The West has always wanted to have its cake and eat it to……a bomb in a shopping center, regardless where the place is located…..Is TERRORISM! ……there are NO “good” or “Bad” terrorists……..there are ONLY TERRORISTS …..either condemn ALL terrorism or shut the f*ck up!
Very good post. It’s the same logic that says attaching electrode to some poor sap’s nuts is torture if they do it and intelligence gathering if we do it. The whole ethos sucks.
I have a different definition of terrorism, of course… a bomber who targets a shopping centre anywhere is a terrorist – whoever he represents. A bomber who only targets a government (wherever it is – assholes all) is a freedom fighter, whoever he represents, and deserves a goddamn medal.
Okay, not literally and not really… but you get the point I’m sure. Citizens, just because they are too weak, or afraid, or even simply too decent to drag their politicians into the streets and hang they from lamp-posts are (in the main) innocents. Politicians are virtually ALWAYS guilty of something, so you can at least understand them being the targets of the frustrated.
We could not agree more…..I have been asking this very question for years…..usually I get some warped and totally moronic difference….I get yelled at because I would ask such a “dumb” question……just like the media’s use of freedom fighter and guerrilla….there is NO difference…one is suppose to be “good” the other “bad”….
Politicians and other members of the “establishment” have some of the strangest values I’ve ever come across. Mind you, in their case, “values” is a relative term… 😆
And it looks like the American people are picking up on the shit values too
Terrorism is used by the state all the time. The use of terrorism can hardly be considered anything other than a strategy. The best target, of course, is the corporation.
tog
I agree……but would not the support for a “good” terrorist be the same as Iran’s support for a “bad” terrorist?
BTW, glad to hear from you again….