Topic: Cuban Dissident (Read 113 times)

damam · « **on:** May 11, 2005, 08:13:00 AM »

I have had a problem with this definition for a long time, and a story has come up that kinda addresses it. . .
this is in relation to this story
Terror suspect was CIA informant
By Definition, a Terrorist

It appears that every country that has an internal faction that opposes the governement would like to be able to label that person a terrorist.

to me: If its an internal conflict, its not terrorism. In order to be terrorism, the terrorist must be from outside the country, and not be represented by a govt.

I know that a lot of this is govt rhetoric, but I was curious as to what you all thought.

gcskate27 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2005, 08:32:00 AM »

so would you have considered mcveigh a terrorist?

damam · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2005, 09:03:00 AM »

i never have in the past.

I dont condone what he did either.

If its internal its one of two things. Its either a psycho, or someone lashing out against the govt. Psycho's have a mental illness. Someone lashing out against their own government when all avenues have been persued is their right to do so. Its part of our tradition. In McVeighs case, according to his family (the govt never gave him a chance to explain himself), he felt the government needed to pay for Waco and especially Ruby Ridge. It was clear that the government wasnt going to punish itself for those incidents. If memory serves me correctly, in each case a few people got leave with pay as their "punishment". And then were brought back on after 3 - 6 months. In other words they got very long paid vacation. And Ruby Ridge truly was an awful act that our Govt committed on its own citizens.

Again, I dont condone his actions, and I sheded no tears when he died. But it is not the same as people coming in from another country, and blowing up buildings. They dont have the desire to see our country go towards greatness. They only want to tear it down. The desired outcome is fundamental. Are these people fighting for the betterment of our people (no matter how twisted that vision is) or do they simply want to tear it down.

thewickedjester · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2005, 09:17:00 AM »

even as an anarchist though, mcveigh was a terrorist, someone commiting acts of terror, be it against his own people, government, or not. why did he blow up the buldings? to cause terror in the hope that it would yeild a final result. so wouldnt that still make him a terrorist?

and arent most terrorists psychotic anyways? so its a double edged sword.

The unProfessional · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2005, 11:05:00 AM »

Damam has a point though. The desired outcome is fundamental to determining the movies of a terrorist. A terrorist is merely one who commits acts for the purpose of striking terror into a population. However, McVeigh's motivation was to create terror in hopes that it'd force the government to rectify it's mistakes. As Damam pointed out, he probably considered it a patriotic move, for the greater good of the American people. Ironic, since that was who he killed.

With most terror attacks around the world, the source is foreign, and the attack is designed to eliminate a sworn enemy. They're looking to bring societies down, whereas McVeigh was trying to the remind the nation that the government serves us, not vice versa.

gcskate27 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2005, 11:30:00 AM »

QUOTE

to create terror in hopes that it'd force the government to rectify it's mistakes

a government, not specifically their own, and 'mistakes' is pretty subjective... pretty much describes any terrorist org ive ever heard of...

damam · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2005, 09:53:00 AM »

QUOTE

Essentally 'terrorism' is the act. So I think labeling someone rather than something is impossible.

Thats an interesting statement - ill have to think a bit on that . . .

QUOTE

Usama Bin Laden also attacked for what he thought was the betterment of his OWN people. Because it was not his own state makes it an act of war. 9/11 went far beyond terror, it was economic and a campaign to scare the US out of Middle Eastern interests.

I dont doubt that for a second. Thats why Im leaning towards a definition that says to be a terrorists you have to be a non-citizen of the country your attacking and also not associated with any govt.

QUOTE

. . . mcveigh was a terrorist, someone commiting acts of terror, be it against his own people, government, or not. why did he blow up the buldings? to cause terror in the hope that it would yeild a final result. so wouldnt that still make him a terrorist?

I had a professor that called our founding fathers terrorists (before 9/11). By what I am hearing a lot of you would agree with them. His arguements include that they killed loyalists to the crown that were not fighting, their horses, and burned their houses to the ground. He also includes things like the "Boston Tea Party", and some other group whose name I cant remember that stabbed the eyes of horses in a sort of war of attrition as acts of terrorism.

What do you think?

If you dont think our Founding Fathers were terrorists what differentiates them? How about the French Revolutionaries?

My position, obviously, is that they were not terrorists. Again the motivation to succeed from the British Empire and the fact that it was an internal conflict with the british empire makes them not terrorists.

Another good example of a bad definition would be the losers of a conflict. Lets say McVeigh attack led to the spark of a successful revolution. I could almost guarantee that he would not be considered a terrorists then.

-XboX-Abuser- · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2005, 02:00:00 PM »

the government during Clinton's reign pulled off the OKC bombing... It's already been documented that more than one bomb did that damage and that they found other unexploded shape charges on some of the columns.

the reason they did it... because in the federal building contained all the documentation on the illegal drug activities that Clinton participated in while governor of Arkansas.

they used Timothy McVeigh as a scapegoat.. and used the revenge over Waco to make a good cover story..

do some research of the cocaine traffiking at the Mena, Arkansas airport during Clinton's watch as governor of Arkansas and how George H. W. Bush helped cover it up while he was the vice president under Ronald Reagan...

same thing with 9/11. Nobody seem to remember that all the SEC investigation research on Enron and the people involved was being kept in offices in the twin towers.. destroy the towers and you destroy the evidence..

-XBA

damam · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2005, 08:52:00 AM »

QUOTE(Arvarden @ May 12 2005, 04:32 AM)

Terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

And I see that definition as a method of oppressing the people. By that definition any revolutionary, justified or not is a terrorist up until the point that they are the govt.

pug_ster · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2005, 03:07:00 PM »

I have to agree with Cuba on this one. What if Bin Laden shows up in Syria and demands political asylum? If Syria allows political asylum for him then we are no better harboring that Cuban Dissident.

Besides, I think it is probably better to let him go and perhaps the relationship between US and Cuba can improve because of it. Castro will probably die in a few years and the US can plot to replace with someone more US friendly.

SNMNMNM! · « **Reply #10 on:** May 19, 2005, 04:14:00 PM »

QUOTE(Colonel32 @ May 19 2005, 01:09 AM)

Ack! Then where would I vacation?!

Author Topic: Cuban Dissident (Read 113 times)