Notice

I am working on the template of this blog today in order to chase down some problems that have developed with my template and widgets.

nullspace for future use

nullspace for future use

About

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Question: How Do You Define Terrorist?

9/25/2007 06:11:00 AM , , , 2 comments

I am a firm believer that questions can reveal more about the Questioner than the Answerer, so I was intrigued by the question from a Commenter that I have appropriated for the title of my post for today.

MY off-the-cuff definition is: One who uses terror to further an agenda.

My 10th Ed. of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says:

One who systematically uses terror as a means of coercion.

The context of my use of terrorist was in relation to the Freedom's Watch advertisement in this post.

I sincerely hope my inquisitor was not hoping to roll out the dead phrase: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," because that dead phrase is a lie. I've heard that from pseudo-intellectuals on college campuses (campi) for 20 years, and read of it being used since the 60's.

The parrot often tries to aver that our first President, George Washington was a terrorist, and a freedom fighter. George Washington did not, by action (or mission of action) directly target civilians to be killed as a tactic in our first War of Independence.

The sixth President of The Islamic Republic of Iran is a terrorist. He is a primary funder of Terrorist Groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas. He has sent funds, weapons and men to support terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Eqypt, Jordan, and other countries. This man was a participant in the 1979 Revolution in Iran that President Jimmy Carter set in motion that brought The Ayatollah Khomeini into power.

I thank God that we have a President named George W. Bush to oppose this man, and others like him. I only hope he can foster another Iranian Revolution to oust these evil mullahs behind Ahmadinejad, or if that fails...take military action to hurt their nuclear program, and take out other targets of opportunity.

I am also confident that President Hillary Clinton will follow in George W. Busah's footsteps in addressing these evils.

2 comments :

"One who systematically uses terror as a means of coercion."

By your own definition, our president is a terrorist.

And, by your own logic, since the head of state is a terrorist it is justifiable for a foreign power, like Iran, to foster a revolution in the United States.

I disagree with your assessment that Bush is a terrorist, or that any foreign country has a right to foment a revolution here.

I do not follow...Who is the President using terror on to coerce?

Terror in a military campaign directed against military or insurgent forces is not the same as terror aimed solely at a civilian populace. I agree with FDRs approval of the military attacks on the factories and German workforce, and the targeting of cottage industries in Japan, where millions of civies were killed. It was either them or us, and I will always choose us.


It is entirely justifiable for any nation to foster a revolution in any other nation, if that revolution will help the people throw off an oppressive government; or a government that poses a threat to their interests. (French help to our Founding Fathers, JFKs aborted Bay of Pigs, Reagan in Nicaragua, Pope JPII in Poland, our current mission in Iran, and the thousands of others like it in history.)

Other nations have attempted to foment revolution here, in the modern era, Viet Nam and the Soviet Union attempted it during the Viet Nam war, and the USSR attempted it even earlier, and the legacy of that attempt is the modern progressive movement in general, and the anti-war movement in particular.

In my opinion, the best course of action open to Iran is to prepare a sneak attack on Israel with everything they have, and activate as many sleeper cells in Europe and America to cause the maximum amount of damage possible. They still lose, but their opponent in the conflict pays a price for their victory. If they do nothing, they risk losing without a serious retaliatory effort that would claim as many lives as their own version of the "Sampson Option." And we are already at war with Iran, who is functioning (perhaps unrealized to them) as a stalking horse for China and a resurgent Russia.

Just like Iraq, I think they really do not believe we will strike first, mainly because they do not understand the concept of a free society like ours. They cannot believe that the leadership of this country would allow a press to report negatively on our leadership, unless it were unable to stop it due to a power struggle between the GOP and the DEM Parties. They believe most of the media are arms of the DEM Party. While I was in the region, nearly all natives believed that our President was weak for not putting his own people in control of the media.

I know Gordon doesn't pay attention when I throw links around, I hope you do (the post). Check out my link in the upper left sidebar to a nexus called Dreaming 5GW. Also google the terms "go deep ooda and the rainbow of generational warfare".
We are at the stage where perceptions are being manipulated, and some of us are fighting back.

Do you get it?

Post a Comment