Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Babe Ruth

What is terror(ism)?

54 posts in this topic

It's a helluva note when "citizens" consider it a crime to expose the crimes of government, but that's what we have.

We've certainly reached a threshold when "citizens" advocate for dictatorial government, but that's what we have.

Yes Virginia, we have the government we deserve.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be Bradley Manning, US Army. He was, as part of his duty, given access to secrets and had agreed to keep them safe. Instead he took it upon himself to give huge amounts of information to Assange to publish. I don't think Manning should be executed unless it's proven that something he released caused the death of an innocent but I do think he should spend about 20 years in a cell. His actions, noble as some here believe them to be, weakens discipline and endangers order in the military. If he is to be excused because he acted out of his own conscience then what should be done to the Muslim soldier who decides in battle to turn his weapon on his fellows? Or the Jewish marine who steals secrets for Israel? The question is not whether the information should have been made public to illuminate crimes by the US government. The question is whether a person under arms and under oath should do so. I would consider a civilian government employee that did this to be a person of deep conscience but I still would not vote to acquit if I were on the jury. We are a nation of laws.

I would go with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thought WW2 was the end of views like this.

Sad.

Well in that case 95% of society are nazis

Except the 5% who like to support those that undermine national security for whatever bizarre reasons.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I don't have a great deal of sympathy for him specifically (he knew the risks afterall)...I wouldn't be so quick to want to throw the book at him either, there could well come a time when we need people with big enough kahunnas to blow the lid on things if the state gets to out of hand....

Yes and the danger is those who spend too much time on the internet believe wild conspiracy theories which they then think entitle them to undermine national security.

You break a culture by delivering the appropiate shock to those driving it. One needs applying to the Wiki leaks guy and the solider the data came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in that case 95% of society are nazis

Except the 5% who like to support those that undermine national security for whatever bizarre reasons.

Where do you get your statistics... LOL

National security?

Erm, he's not American. So he does not undermine his National Security. You really should look at his past record and how he saved thousands of peoples lives from dictatorship, slavery and rape.

Then you might realise how he was fighting for freedom and truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how Bradley Manning got hold of the Secretary of State's documents. And no, it is not Manning as he certainly was not the security officer of his outfit.

Well you have access to more info than most. The public here in the US were told that he took a CD with a Lady GaGa label and copied all the info onto it from his computer at his workstation. He only could copy that which he had secure access to. If your point is that his superiors were in some way culpable ALSO, then I agree. If he had access beyond what his clearance provided then they are to blame also. To me his case revolves COMPLETELY around his wearing the uniform while he took these actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have access to more info than most. The public here in the US were told that he took a CD with a Lady GaGa label and copied all the info onto it from his computer at his workstation. He only could copy that which he had secure access to. If your point is that his superiors were in some way culpable ALSO, then I agree. If he had access beyond what his clearance provided then they are to blame also. To me his case revolves COMPLETELY around his wearing the uniform while he took these actions.

Right, and there is a guy assigned that these things don't happen, generally called the security officer. Among others his job entails making sure that nobody gets near a TEMPEST computer with his own CDs. Because in this case it was just so the Army could not cover up shooting civilians, so we know about it, how many others do you think could do the same but instead copy the security software to sell it to some hackers, a foreign nation or criminals?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and there is a guy assigned that these things don't happen, generally called the security officer. Among others his job entails making sure that nobody gets near a TEMPEST computer with his own CDs. Because in this case it was just so the Army could not cover up shooting civilians, so we know about it, how many others do you think could do the same but instead copy the security software to sell it to some hackers, a foreign nation or criminals?

Sorry, that went over my head. Are you saying Manning is completely innocent and that someone else made the information available to Assange? Because someone did. I'm not computer expert by any means but I do know that in a sensitive enough system every keystroke is audited and stored including which terminals they were made on and when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you get your statistics... LOL

National security?

Erm, he's not American. So he does not undermine his National Security. You really should look at his past record and how he saved thousands of peoples lives from dictatorship, slavery and rape.

Then you might realise how he was fighting for freedom and truth.

The guy thinks he is the moral authority of the world. 20 years in a US prison will soon teach him his place. I'd prefer the chair for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that went over my head. Are you saying Manning is completely innocent and that someone else made the information available to Assange? Because someone did. I'm not computer expert by any means but I do know that in a sensitive enough system every keystroke is audited and stored including which terminals they were made on and when.

Naturally not, what I am saying is that if everybody did his job Manning would have had no occasion to copy anything from a government computer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you answered your own question babe:

"If terror is a normal and predictable reaction to certain stimuli, then terrorism is the manipulation or exploitation of that reaction."

And, questionmark nailed it in the first response with his definition.

I say most terrorism is nothing more than a threat. There needn't be any truth to a threat to sometimes be effective.

One ACT can instill fear of more acts. The mere mention of the words terror or terrorist/s is sufficient to mold public policy now.

As and then said, most politicians are overusing and abusing the word. I would add , "news" casters as well.

I'm sick of hearing .... "THE TERRORISTS" in regard to any retaliatory action taken by people responding to an invading force. A guy shooting back is NOT a terrorist. I know what terrorism isn't.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy thinks he is the moral authority of the world. 20 years in a US prison will soon teach him his place. I'd prefer the chair for him.

Yes and the danger is those who spend too much time on the internet believe wild conspiracy theories which they then think entitle them to undermine national security.

You break a culture by delivering the appropiate shock to those driving it. One needs applying to the Wiki leaks guy and the solider the data came from.

I don't see any difference between you and the Conspiracy Theorists, you're both reactionary, and that always was the shortest route to a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ORANGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the consensus is that the word and notion are overused by the mainstream media.

If a synonym for terror is fear, then it seems a major purpose of the mainstream media is to keep fear alive in the public psyche.

Numerous studies have shown that the chances of being killed or maimed in a terror event are about the same as being struck by lightning.

Why does the media play the terror card so frequently?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE CIA's DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the consensus is that the word and notion are overused by the mainstream media.

If a synonym for terror is fear, then it seems a major purpose of the mainstream media is to keep fear alive in the public psyche.

Numerous studies have shown that the chances of being killed or maimed in a terror event are about the same as being struck by lightning.

Why does the media play the terror card so frequently?

Because of threats from Muslim extremists..and other extremism of other religions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sliiiiiiightly off-topic: to my UK ears 'terrorism' and 'terrorist', when pronounced by some Americans(George W. in particular), sound like 'tourism' and 'tourists'. Makes news bulletins very confusing ........ and sometimes amusing :)

Yes, & instead of saying American he says Merkin which in fact is :- 'false hair for the female pudenda.' (***** wig)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE CIA's DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

So by their own definition, the US goverment is Terrorists... HAHA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, & instead of saying American he says Merkin which in fact is :- 'false hair for the female pudenda.' (***** wig)

The man was/is just one huge face-palm :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia are terrorists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia are terrorists

Another example of the American Goverment and their propaganda. Communism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of the American Goverment and their propaganda. Communism...

In what way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As Coffey pointed out on another thread, 'terrorism' is probably the most overused word in the language today. Has the word been corrupted? Has the public perception been corrupted by the overuse of the term?

I have seen the definition of terror as a normal reaction to certain stimuli, including fear. Indeed, Webster defines it also as "intense, overwhelming fear."

If terror is a normal and predictable reaction to certain stimuli, then terrorism is the manipulation or exploitation of that reaction.

Any thoughts?

I just bumped into that thread while thinking of posting one about fear: I believe one can answer the other read here

Edited by Paracelse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way?

The US goverment shoving the Communism word into everyones faces until all patroitic Americans hated any communist countries. It caused so much hate. The exact same thing has happened with "terrorism". Same psychology, different word.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US goverment shoving the Communism word into everyones faces until all patroitic Americans hated any communist countries. It caused so much hate. The exact same thing has happened with "terrorism". Same psychology, different word.

Well im afraid you are mistaken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.