Is Iran supporting terrorism?
It all depends on which lens we are looking at the issue through.We can agree that Iran sponsors Hizbolla, Hamaz and the Syrian Regime.The Question is, if these can be seen as terrorist groups. it depends on who you ask.If you ask the west and Israel these groups are terrorist groups, so in this aspect the answer to your question would be yes.But what if we look at the facts? Hizbolla is a big part of Lebanon, and are conceived of as a legitimate "army". they are not seen as terrorists but defenders and freedom fighters.In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian elections, in this aspect one would say they are part of a "government". when you look at it, Israel does actually negotiate with Hamas. We all know that the US and Israel do not negotiate with terrorists.Syria is a country, and Assad is it president. Iran supports this country and its regime. Now if we look at it from this angle, Iran would not be a state sponsoring terrorism. If we conclude that Iran supports terrorism and condemn them for it, we would have to condemn many other countries.Let us look at the rise Al-qaida, who sponsored them, trained them and armed them? the same question applies to ISIS.Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80's against his own population and Iran. Who supplied the Chemical weapons? I guess we all know the answer to that. So would one think that the supplier and deployer of chemical weapons would be considered terrorists?Many countries support groups in different regions to forward their own political agenda. This has been the case for all western powers for the last century.So is it fair to condemn Iran? and if it is, then should we also condemn the USA, UK, Israel, Saudi and France? the list can go on.It is all politics and has actually not much to do with terrorism.
Do you think a religion makes a terrorist?
I think that lack of education makes a terrorist.Here’s a quote from my dad. He’s an amazing person to talk to, and is probably one of the smartest people I know. “The worst thing you can be in this life is ignorant and uneducated”. He might’ve heard this somewhere and passed it on, but its probably the most true thing I’ve ever heard.Where does extremism come from? It comes from not being able to adapt and be flexible. The extremists who ruled Saudi Arabia and prevented their female citizens from being able to drive, hold land etc.., all weren’t flexible. They never adapted as the rest of the world adapted.Religion is simply something that extremists are using to justify their extreme actions by claiming its from “God”. I’m not a believer in God but I know for sure that God would never condone any of their actions.An Athiest could commit a terrorist act and become branded as a terrorist. Terrorism isn’t limited to religion, it can stem from anything.If the people who turned to extreme methods were actually educated, they wouldn’t be terrorists in the first place. They wouldn’t be rigid, and they wouldn’t try to justify their actions by misinterpreting ancient books.
Is it true that the founders of Israel were terrorists?
Yes, some of the founders of Israel were terrorists. They were different from many modern terrorists, however. Their goal was to create terror, but to do it without killing innocent people. (Please note, I do not advocate or support any form of terrorism.)Their primary target was the British Administration. After World War I, the League of Nations assigned Great Britain to administer (govern) Palestine. The British, who earlier welcomed Jewish immigrants, had changed their policy and were doing their utmost to keep more Jews from settling there.One example of the intent of the Jewish terrorists was their attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. They planted bombs and set timers for the bombs to explode. They knew that many innocent people would be killed if they didn’t leave the hotel, so the terrorists called the manager, told him they had planted explosives, and instructed him to evacuate the hotel. He didn’t believe the caller, so he refused to evacuate. The terrorists called again and repeated the message. He refused again. The bombs went off, and there were many casualties. The Jewish terrorists were responsible for those murders, but they made it clear that they did not intend to kill innocent people, only to bring fear to the British in an attempt to get them to change their policy.After the British left and Israel became independent, Menachem Begin wanted to keep his terrorist group active as a sort of private army or guerrilla force. The prime minister of Israel, David ben Gurion, said no. He sent the Israeli army to locate and destroy all the arms that Begin’s group had stored up. While some people think that Israel’s founders were terrorists and its leaders are terrorists still today, history shows that the Israeli government opposes all terrorism, does not permit its armed forces to act like terrorists, and punishes even its own citizens if they act like terrorists.
Do some people not understand this?
You cannot negotiate with terrorists. They will only demand more and more from you until they demand something you cannot give, then you are at war anyway. These people have no honor and do not respect the rules of war and open combat. They are cowards that hide amongst civilians and use them as sheilds in order to carry out nefarious deeds. They need to be wiped out because whether you negotiate with them or not, given the oppurtunity they would murder you and everyone else on this site. Do not forget that. I certainly wont therefore I will support my country and any other country fighting them in any way I can. G.W.B. sign me up, I will gladly protect this great nation and the people in it. Does anyone else agree? Disagree? Let me hear all angles.
Why wasn't there any condemnation when a former terrorist Yitzhak Shamir was elected as the Prime Minister of Israel?
Probably for the same reason that when Nelson Mandela was elected president of SA, very few people thought to bring forward condemnation of his terrorist past: it was many , many years earlier, he had long since abandoned terrorism, and the cause he was pursuing using terrorism was viewed as a just one.
Define "terrorism".?
Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Another common definition sees terrorism as political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors. Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal-law definition. The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A study on political terrorism examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements (e.g. Violence, force, fear, threat, victim-target differentiation). In some cases, the same group may be described as "freedom fighters" by its supporters and considered to be terrorists by its opponents. The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state). At the same time, the reverse may also take place when states perpetrate or are accused of perpetrating state terrorism. The usage of the term has a controversial history, with individuals such as ANC leader Nelson Mandela at one point also branded a terrorist.
Why is the world not interested in South Africa anymore?
Hallo daar. Interesting facts you're pointing out. And yes, if we look at the truth, the world is loosing interest in us. (Sadly)!!! But what did you expect? All you read about South Africa is corruption, murder on tourist, all the bad things that is taking place in SA. When last did you hear something positive. Changing all the cities names, for example: Johannesburg International Airport, is changed to O.R. Thambo (Who is he anyway???). Pretoria, now Tshwane (the worst part of it all, not even the black people are sure if Tshwane was a leader in their culture, some never even heard of him). Now I know you must wonder what this have to do with your question, well here goes: If the South African people doesn't know where all this places are (with the new names), how will the people abroad know where they're going... Many people didn't even know Johannesburg, what to say about O.R. Thambo. Tourism is playing a huge fact in the interest of other countries in South Africa. This is rediculous!!! And as you said, the taxpayer is paying for all this bullshiit. We are ruled by a bunch of monkeys, so why would you want to visit a country zoo if you've got a zoo in your own country???????? And let's face it, apartheid is actually worse than in the apartheids-era. Think about it people, apartheid has just changed from white to black... (I know not all of us, but open your eyes and see, blacks hate whites, and white hates black!!!!) Sometimes it feels like I'm standing outside, watching South Africa turning into a huge murder and crime scene!!! Face the facts, just open the newspaper and smell the blood!
Whats your favorite historical moment?
Cinco de Mayo (the 5th of may) It's the day the Mexicans beat the French (but who hasn't beaten the French) June 26, 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment is an individual right. April 19, 1979 America got ME!