[Discussion] What is Terrorism?

The world is a dangerous place, and nuclear war isn't the only threat.
User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:14 am

Zanting wrote:Oh, a book, I'll have to write a reply later because I'm wiped from building a gun.
I hope you're not serious....
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:16 am

I'll write a cohesive reply tomorrow, I have a question, have you ever actually talked to any of these people or gone to see what they're actually about? Alternatively, of course, do you or have you known anyone -- family/friends?
Worldwatcher wrote:I hope you're not serious....
Guns are legal out here bro.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:33 am

Zanting wrote:I'll write a cohesive reply tomorrow, I have a question, have you ever actually talked to any of these people or gone to see what they're actually about? Alternatively, of course, do you or have you known anyone -- family/friends?
I study terrorism in my Uni degree, and no, I don't want to be involved with extremism, I am perfectly happy researching the subject on campus. One of my lecturers has met and researched convicted terrorists in Indonesia, and has worked in the field about 30 years, her info is good enough for me.
Worldwatcher wrote:I hope you're not serious....
Guns are legal out here bro.[/quote]

Just a heads up, talking about "building a gun" on a topic about terrorism could put you in a LOT of hot water somewhere. You don't know who is looking at the site. I'd like to suggest a Mod edit that out.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

hrng
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:15 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia

Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:49 am

Worldwatcher wrote:Just a heads up, talking about "building a gun" on a topic about terrorism could put you in a LOT of hot water somewhere. You don't know who is looking at the site. I'd like to suggest a Mod edit that out.
Mate I think we're all already on the big list :D

User avatar
DirtyDevil69
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2504
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:25 pm

Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:40 am

Id like too put my 2 bit in. Neo nazis arent technically what you should be worried about. While we are a far right group, we dont physically target people. Who you should be scared of are the skin heads. Those with a bunch of tattoos and nazi symbols and usually, but not always a bald head, they are the ones who target people and roam in gangs and are cowards and attack people who cant defend themselves, including helpless elderly and people in the minority. They are the ones who, in todays world, make us look bad.

We get judged, and hell ive been shut down on the board for speaking my mind on this. Just because we have the word Nazi in our name doesnt mean we want to fucking kill jews and people we dont like, everyone just fucking stereotypes us, and its bullshit.

Sorry for the rant.

Neo nazi basically means believing in the nazi party and hoping for its return. So please dont be scared of neo nazi groups, we dont mean for any physical harm of the people, just a secure future for our children.


But personally, terrorism to me means attacks on civilians without a true cause. Dropping gas on your own people to me is considered terrorism. Attacking civilians of a country you may or may not be at war with is terrorism. Their is indeed a fine line though.

Civilian casualties, while sad, are unavoidable in any war. But, if you attack a city your enemy is dug into, and civilians die in the process, it is, regrettably, a casualty of war. But, if you blatantly attack an area where you know it is at least 90 percent civilian or more, and just fire rockets into that area, that is terrorism.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
~ General George S. Patton- WW2
Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful)
~ U.S. Marines

User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:09 am

You can be extremist and non-violent. By definition Extremism is "the uncompromising and rigid political ideologies that oppose a society's core values and attitudes". A key tenant of freedom of speech is that, as I said earlier, people can believe what they like, as long as it is not imposing on anyone else's human rights, safety or belief system. When the ideology becomes, or advocates violent action that it becomes a serious issue.

In saying that, there is an EXTREMELY fine line between neo-nazism and potential terrorist action. Organisations and groups such as the Skinheads branch off from nazism, the KKK invokes tenants from their own origins, nazism, and christian extremism, in both cases, even that branching association is question enough. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city bomber used neo-nazi material "The Turner Diaries" as a blueprint to conduct his attacks. It would be remiss to neglect the fact that "The Turner diaries" and other works by the prominent neo-nazi William Pierce did not advocate violence. The book itself describes a
"a civil war in the United States in which white Aryans fight what the author and other right-wing extremists call the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG), killing blacks and Jews indiscriminately. The dramatic highlights are the ruthless destruction of American cities to pave the way for the dream come true of a white US and a White world."
- Terrorism and Counter-terrorism. 5th edition, pg 81.

Peaceful or not, I wouldn't be advocating extremism at all, as there can be wide reaching consequences, not just on the board, and we are both aware of which government entity watches this board. I think Mod intervention might be necessary at some point in this thread.

As for the definition of terrorism, States cannot conduct terror themselves. They can do abhorrent things like you described, but that would be called a war crime. I list other reasons earlier in the thread.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

User avatar
DirtyDevil69
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2504
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:25 pm

Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:25 am

While their are groups out their violent and extremist, ive associated myself with a group that take the political path, so i did speak for my group, not the entire foundation. So i do apologize if i didnt make that clear.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
~ General George S. Patton- WW2
Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful)
~ U.S. Marines

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:09 am

This is going to be a complicated reply chain.
Worldwatcher wrote:Just because a radical group has not committed violent acts themselves, doesn't mean they are exempt. Often, they are the enabler or start of radical ideas and motives. "Planting the seed', if you will.
Context is again required, exempt by who exactly, as well do you think those of us involved in activism are even worried about being exempt from something developed out of critical theory which we dismiss? Read this.
Worldwatcher wrote:So if the police were not watching these fringe groups, violence would be openly advocated? It is not a crime to have extremist views, it is pretty bad, but not a crime. The crime comes when one acts on those extremist views, whether it be the encouragement of violence, or violence itself. "People can believe what they like, as long as it is not imposing on anyone else's human-rights, safety, or belief system". If the authorities were to shut down easily monitored extremist sites that do not, at least openly, advocate violence, then it pushes it underground, making members more susceptible to commit acts of violence.
Is that an actual question or a statement?
  1. It actually is a crime depending on where you live.
  2. It is "bad" according to who? Note, this is quite subjective, which means it is not objective.
  3. Human rights come from critical theory, they do not exist in any tangible way, they come through enforcement.
This is quite incorrect, organic hubs or sites which are not infiltrated or subverted are being shutdown constantly, without advocating actual violence. Actually, what is typically happening especially now, is that the public window is being directed to certain controllable opposition to "cut off the pass" & cause misdirection. These are not things they do out of the goodness of their heart to "prevent terrorism", it's about eliminating exposure & the spotlight being placed directly on them, reality simply doesn't fit the presented narrative out of academia.
Worldwatcher wrote:As I said, terror comes from all across society, and appears in "waves" left wing is not as prominent in this time period, as a few decades ago, but that is not to say they are not there.
Leftism & liberalism are enforced, to say it is not prominent, is absurd. ANTIFA are about as much a naturally occurring wave as George Soros is White, you must remember that we see "left & right" as moot regarding that which is permitted, as they are directed by the same people.
Worldwatcher wrote:The same could be argued for the phrase "middle eastern terrorists".
Should people from the Middle East live here? If they do not, therein, this becomes entirely void for consideration.
Worldwatcher wrote:That is irrelevant to the topic of homegrown terrorism.
Not in relation to the wider grand picture.
Worldwatcher wrote:And there are reasons for that. They still have thousands of members, and are somewhat coordinated. If the groups themselves do not commit as many actions as the past, they are still by broad definition, terrorists. Their ideas spread, forming would-be extremists.
Ideas & words change people, which then moves the Overton Window, which then causes change on the level of civilization itself. After societal change occurs would this then be considered extremism? No.
Worldwatcher wrote:That is not the point, simply saying "the other is worse" doesn't discount the threat of that group. When people think that they have right on their side, they can do an awful lot of damage.
My intent is not to imply that two wrong's make a right because right & wrong are entirely subjective, but that this is an inverted reality being reflected on, to dwell on whether it has merit or is right or not is heavily contrasted by the origin of the perspective which has first caused this dwelling to take place. [*]
Worldwatcher wrote:What do you mean by this?
The ADL & SPLC are not only restricted to the United States, they have a very broad reach, carrying on critical theory brought about many decades ago & have a decisive effect on academia reaching across the globe. Relevant to this situation & those before them you must remember that influential individuals cause both change through the ages as well as through other people.
Worldwatcher wrote:--------------------------------

To address your point as a whole:

Please view this:
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extr ... tacks.html
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extr ... lysis.html

Image

As this data shows, Jihadist terror has the most casualties, but that is not a viable factor, as deaths are circumstantial on the attack themselves. Far right-wing attacks are more widespread. Simply saying that the "other side" does it too doesn't make your point correct.
Surprising how despite the White majority being an even higher percentage back then there would still be so much non-White terrorism, oh right, it's not. See [*] again as that is the more difficult point to explain & get across.

I see this as objectively being irrelevant since I view [Know] our state of affairs as artificially created against our own self-interest(s), mind you, I knew people many years ago who were involved in physical reaction to that which they & I are against. One should be able to objectively see that force being applied by Europeans in European countries against non-Europeans is simply not the same thing, as these are all our countries, there can be exceptions to this of course. So this can be viewed in a much more complicated way than some graph or statistic which has derivatives along some type of equal line, which itself, outs its own narrative.

People like Anders Breivik for example I have a lot of criticism about, to be perfectly honest, you couldn't place me in the same proximity to him without "something" happening. Of course, my view is much more complicated than that alone too, as it usually is.
Worldwatcher wrote:- KKK (the most notable group)
Outdated. The most notable group today is Daily Stormer.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Christian Identity & Neo Nazi groups
I don't have any issues with CI to be honest, though I am irreligious, many people in the pro-White movement hold different religious beliefs. It isn't the most primary concern by far.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Patriot & militia movement
Non-issue.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Sovereign Citizens movement
Image
Worldwatcher wrote:- Islamic Extremism (it is still up for debate whether this is right / left / other)
This is an interesting one since Islam can adapt to both left & right to push ideology forward, we can observe this as it varies by country & location, I think it is a lot more complicated than saying it is simply one or the other.
Worldwatcher wrote:I study terrorism in my Uni degree, and no, I don't want to be involved with extremism, I am perfectly happy researching the subject on campus. One of my lecturers has met and researched convicted terrorists in Indonesia, and has worked in the field about 30 years, her info is good enough for me.
Here's the thing though, as much as you're going through education this literally doesn't mean anything regarding the movement currently happening now, your perspective is still entirely linear regarding this though as you are unable to put yourself from another perspective. Considering many of us have spent time monitoring foreign conflict or for those who've actually fought overseas I expect more than this, when I was your age I could put myself from the perspective of someone in an occupied country like Iraq, this doesn't make me an Iraqi or make you 'involved' it simply is part of learning beyond what you can read at school or view in the media.

Indonesian teacher I presume?
Worldwatcher wrote:Just a heads up, talking about "building a gun" on a topic about terrorism could put you in a LOT of hot water somewhere. You don't know who is looking at the site. I'd like to suggest a Mod edit that out.
I don't mean build one from scratch, I'm fixing, modifying & tuning up one I've had for many years.
DirtyDevil69 wrote:While their are groups out their violent and extremist, ive associated myself with a group that take the political path, so i did speak for my group, not the entire foundation. So i do apologize if i didnt make that clear.
The ANP is actually quite moderate, over at DS there's been discussion about them a little while ago, if GLR had not been assassinated society may be quite different today.
Tanith wrote:We moved this thread into moderation earlier due to a number of concerns. However, the boss has looked over it and decided that while some comments are controversial, none are actionable.

So it's been replaced in its home forum, with this admonition from Tom:
Put the thread back where it was found and let (civilized) discussion continue.
He's got faith in y'all.

:)
Back from the void.
Last edited by Zanting on Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:52 am, edited 7 times in total.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

User avatar
DirtyDevil69
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2504
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:25 pm

Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:40 am

Tanith wrote:We moved this thread into moderation earlier due to a number of concerns. However, the boss has looked over it and decided that while some comments are controversial, none are actionable.

So it's been replaced in its home forum, with this admonition from Tom:
Put the thread back where it was found and let (civilized) discussion continue.
He's got faith in y'all.

:)
Well all of us talking here are pretty level headed and know eachother, and have been on the board long enough. Hell im the only one ive seen get pissed on the board, so id put my trust in these guys as well.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
~ General George S. Patton- WW2
Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful)
~ U.S. Marines

User avatar
Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:18 am

Gonna watch a movie. Will finish writing later.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

Post Reply