English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I ask because it is a fact that U.S. Forces entered/attacked the Iranian Embassy in Iraq yesterday and then today someone attacked the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece. The media is calling the attack on the Embassy in Greece an act of terrorism, but NOT the attack the U.S. Forces did on the Iranian Embassy yesterday.

Call me crazy, but I cannot see any difference in the acts. What do you think? Who really are the terrorists? Are terrorists anyone who doesn't agree with President Bush?

2007-01-12 03:45:55 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

NOTE: I realize the media is trying to convince us all that it is possibly home grown terrorists in Greece and that is what makes it an act of terrorism, but I believe it doesn't matter who it is or what Embassy you attack. It's all terrorism or none of it is terrorism.

2007-01-12 03:49:30 · update #1

6 answers

I cant agree any more on this, with you my friend!

Bush and Bin Laden are sides of the same coin which is called Terrorism. Its just that he has the media to show him as a saint and Bin laden a sinner.

However, I dont approve of anyone of them. I dont just get the point as to why US is spending Billions of dollars killing people who are anyway dying of hunger and diseases. And moreover, they are also putting lives of american solders in jepordy for some selfish reasons.

2007-01-12 03:56:57 · answer #1 · answered by Shiv 2 · 3 3

Terrorism is an act, violent or not, which is intentionally performed on parties to create panic, fear, or hesitation in people not necessarily associated with the target of the terrorist act. The idea is to give attention to an individual or group which otherwise would not have as strong a voice to spread their belief (religous, political, or otherwise) or make a change in something.
A military attack is not considered terrorism because it is usually a deliberate action made to get a specific response from the targeted group. Should the military randomly drive down a street and shoot up everything in sight, then you can consider that to be an act of terrorism.
That's my take on it.

2007-01-12 11:58:44 · answer #2 · answered by David 3 · 1 0

Hi Crazy,
Just teasin.
From Wikipedia
Terrorisim is:
"A form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by:
1. convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm,
2. destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising,
3. escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing the severity of a grievance,
4. drawing attention to a neglected cause."
Isn't that essentialy the jist of how Operation Freedom Iraq went down? I don't see the difference either

2007-01-12 13:06:28 · answer #3 · answered by murkglider 5 · 0 0

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

It often depends on who has control of the media..on whether a person or group is perceived as a threat or a liberator...

Some common components of a "terrorist":
1) violence or threat of violence
2) psychological impact and fear (a performance to create a large impact)
3) perpetrated for a political goal (often for religious or nationalist reasons)
4) deliberate targeting of non-combatants
5) unlawfulness or illegitimacy (usually the present government can do what they want; everyone else's actions can be deemed "terrorism")

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorists by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called statesmen by similar organizations, such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nelson Mandela

One of the most confusing types of terrorism is state sponsored terrorism: A state can sponsor terrorism by funding a terrorist organization, harboring terrorism, and also using state resources, such as the military, to directly perform acts of terrorism. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such. That's why at various times the United States has funded and provided military weapons to nations such as Iraq (to Saddam) and Iran (to the Shah), and later labeled them a terrorist nation (even though we are the ones who armed them)..

2007-01-12 12:50:24 · answer #4 · answered by edith clarke 7 · 1 1

They have political agenda or haters. Instead of struggling peacefully for achieving their goal, they use force harming innocent people. In their group they are known as freedom fighters. Countries have used WMD against unarmed civilians to win the war. This is open terrorism but is not recognized. People who do not like presence of foreign troops in their mother land start armed struggle, are great terrorist. Reality is that who so ever kills an innocent person is criminal.

2007-01-12 12:21:09 · answer #5 · answered by snashraf 5 · 0 1

Terrorism is telling someone or group of people that you are going to hurt them and/or make their lives miserable if they do not comply with whatsoever you want them to do, regardless of the consequences of compliance!

2007-01-12 11:54:11 · answer #6 · answered by Netsbridge 3 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers