Proper Terrorists that have been proven to be guilty fine take em out, the problem is a government can label anyone a terrorist which would be where the problem arises, the only other problem is that by killing territorists you could be creating martyrs for their cause.
How do we determine what freedom they wish to pursue? They may want revenge and the feeling of liberation to enter their mind. People fight for many reasons and freedoms can be depicted many ways. Also when you say "Islamists" you must realize that all Islamic people arent terrorists. Anybody can be a terrorist. The boston marathon suspects were Russian the last time I checked.
Actually they were Chechens not Russians, get educated. Chechnya is a Muslim Region controlled by Russia and they are notorious for their Radicalized Islam. You think 5 people in bomb is large think about 200 Russians dying from these guys. I understand that you say that not all Muslims are terrorists however a good portion are radicalized.Or about 7%. You might think that is small but 7% of 1.3 billion is 91 MILLION. That is more than the population of Spain and Italy.
Oh well my bad. Chechens. Now by what was previously stated one cannot determine what the terrorist was fighting for. Either freedom, peace, vengance, or anything. As you see by the numbers you provided some people want change and bringing about change by simple vocal skills or intensified rhetoric wont help you although it is a great asset to have. By the actions of these "terrorists" we deem the entire muslim population as a potential terrorist and we radically degrade their status for it. Also if we jump out of America and look at terrorism on a global scale we will see that America is not a hotspot but yet remains a target. The simple fact is that, from the quote presented above, a terrorist may be a freedom fighter. How can we tell? How do we know their ambitions? Can death not bare fruit in the end or have a thought of producing fruit in its outcome? Can murder not become justifiable by any means? Of course we can measure these by examples but these examples are applicable practically to any terrorist or freedom fighter. America itself is seen as a superpowered terrorist to some countries. Iraqis were terrified because innocent people were being detained, murdered, or even tortured. We can be seen as a terrorizing organization against the other nations. So apply 91 million to 300 million in the eyes of the feared.
We have caught some Americans with home made bombs in a backpack. Planning to commit some terrorizing actions. A terrorist commits an act of terror and all terrorists do not have to be foreign. By these definition:
1) a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism
2) a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
These definitions never state that a terrorist has to be foreign. Society just deems terrorists as foreign. Did I make myself clear enough?
Agreed. But you seemed to imply that Americans were in foreign soil committing acts of terror. If that's is what you meant, who are you referring to specifically? If that is not the case, then..., never mind ;)
60%? This would be "potential" correct? Also are they terrorists or are they fighting for something they believe in?
They fight for: You not being allowed to talk to man that is no part of your family. You being banned from education. You being not allowed to drive a car. They also fight for removing equality of man an women. Banning music. Banning freedom of speech, Banning freedom of religion and many many more things...
Yes but by our morals we deem this to be incorrect of bad. Not by truth. Also you only point out the bad. Why not quote the good also or is that not important to you? Morals are morals and they have a wide spectrum and no man can judge or even condemn one above the other but can voice their opinion to pursuade a mass crowd. That is you. The one in the crowd.
es but by our morals we deem this to be incorrect of bad. Not by truth. Also you only point out the bad. Why not quote the good also or is that not important to you? Morals are morals and they have a wide spectrum and no man can judge or even condemn one above the other but can voice their opinion to pursuade a mass crowd. That is you. The one in the crowd.
Reality is that there are two different societies with two different moral systems: One is so called "western/secular" with gender equality, healthcare, science, freedom of speech, capable of sending humans on different planets, mastered nuclear energy, fast pacing advanced society where moral is a result of long discussions and secular decision making procedure.
The other one culture, technologically about 800 year behind the "western" one where women are equal to dogs. Human life has no value, everything is about religion created by mass murder and psychopath and anything that looks like it does not fit is punished by death, being different or asking questions means death. Most advanced technology is a camel saddle. Lifespan 40 if lucky, no education for women, no freedom of speech.
These two things are no equal. If you think that they are, you should try to live in the other one for a while to get clearer picture about it.
Wow man your persistent, and yes Hitler did form a mass movement for the outcome of a super human race but he also believed the people needed to be controlled and the best way Hitler could achieve this was through the peoples money, and welfare.
Witch argument... Obama is a little tiny puppet on a really big TV screen. Behind the scenes are all secret meetings and oaths. Google this stuff yourself, it would take me days to explain all of it to you.
Every country that has ever formed a socialist form of government has committed genocide. The only reason these countries are not seen today as authoritarian is because the people for decades have grown to be submissive and easily controllable by its government.
There is a secret government that has taken over the United States along with much of Europe, the Middle East and large portions of Asia via centralized banking allowing for private corporations to have total control over a nations treasury. Doing this allows the bankers to line there pockets with a nations taxes.
once again "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
let us look at Syria... to Assad the Rebels are terrorists and to the west they are freedom fighters. So if the only good terrorist is a dead one the west should go give Assad a big hug and send him lots of weapons and send their own armies to kill the "terrorists".
But the Free Syrian Army is considered (on the whole) as a force for freedom and therefore not a terrorist organisation. that is by the west. Perhaps its better for us to look at the Free Syrian Army as our terrorists, not a view we want to embrace, but that is basically who they are.
so if you support Freedom in Syria then you cannot agree with the statement that "The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist"