Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: World's Most Dangerous Terrorist...?
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
jedione12
I used to think the answer to this was Bin Laden, but after reading an article called "The Brain" (playboy's june issue), I switched my opinion to Khalid Shieikh Mohammed. Does anyone else agree with me? This guy was the mastermind behind so many terrorist attacks (incl. 9/11) that it made my head spin. It was also surprising to read that he received his bachelor's degree here in the States, with classmates describing him as a "class clown". Simply crazy, and scary when you think about it.

Thoughts or opinions?

Steve
Catherine
QUOTE
I used to think the answer to this was Bin Laden, but after reading an article called "The Brain" (playboy's june issue), I switched my opinion to Khalid Shieikh Mohammed. Does anyone else agree with me? This guy was the mastermind behind so many terrorist attacks (incl. 9/11) that it made my head spin. It was also surprising to read that he received his bachelor's degree here in the States, with classmates describing him as a "class clown". Simply crazy, and scary when you think about it.

Thoughts or opinions?



What facts did Playboy give for believing that this man was the real brain behind the attack, jedione12? Who was the author? How is Playboy viewed...leaning right, left, or indifferent?) How did this author portray the Bush administration's role in the attack? Did the article raise any questions within your own mind?


Take a look at these sites, please:

http://www.karlschwarz.com (Excellet links)

http://www.reopen911.org/

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...ATKSMarrest.htm


THEN please tell us if you still think your man KSM is the REAL villian in the piece.

Catherine





kindoki
TERRORISTS R US

"Most terrorists have mundane, apparently peaceful lives, but are just as cruel as those who behead for an internet audience. They are you and me, ordinary people consuming much too much, leading an unsustainable lifestyle, committing cultural genocide on the vast majority of humanity, plundering non-western economies in the name of free trade, and imposing our lifestyle and morality on the rest of humanity. Yes, terrorists r (also) us!

Of course, there is a difference between ‘their’ terrorism and ‘our’ terrorism. They often have a legitimate grievance; they engage in conscious terrorism because they see themselves as powerless against powerful governments that have inflicted real injustice on them. We are motivated by greed, a sense of superiority and an unshakable belief in our right to dominate the world. They kill indiscriminately. We kill en masse. Their nefarious deeds get the attention of the global media. Our terrorist activities are invisible, shrouded in pious rhetoric about “freedom and democracy,” embedded in our way of life, integrated into our system of thought and way of looking at the world. They know they are guilty. We have an innate belief in our innocence. They kill in hundreds and thousands; we kill in millions.

Of the 4.4 billion people living in the developing countries, nearly three fifths lack access to sewers, a third to clean water, a quarter to housing, and a fifth to health care of any kind. Every day 800 million people go hungry. A baby born today in Botswana has a life expectancy of 39.

This is not the product of some fluke of history, or natural disasters, or mismanagement by tinpot dictators or lack of initiative by the wretched of the Earth. These people are the direct victims of our consciously-planned policies and actions. We deny government aid and our markets to African peanut farmers but give billions of dollars in subsidies to American peanut farmers and ensure they can sell their products all over the globe. We subsidize every cow in the European Union by $2.50 a day and force the vast majority of peasants in Africa and Asia off their land to live on less than $1 a day.

We also kill cultures, destroy traditional communities in the name of development, turn rainforests into deserts to satisfy our craving for hamburgers. Ten languages fall silent every year. Entire cultures, lifestyles and different ways of being human are disappearing as a direct result of the cultural terrorism we perpetuate.

In return, we gloat. America constitutes three percent of world’s population but consumes 25 percent of its energy and produces 30 percent of its pollution. The three richest Americans have assets exceeding the combined gross domestic products of the 48 least-developed countries. Americans spend $8 billion on cosmetics, almost as much on pet food, and $10 billion a year on pornography – more than the estimated total needed to provide clean water, safe sewers and basic health care to the world’s poor.

This, then, is the world that the West has created over the past two centuries and America has shaped during the last few decades. In this world, inequalities, exploitation and imperialism are not just part of the system – they are the System.

‘Evil terrorists’ perform horrendous acts of carnage by insulating their conscious awareness from the emotional consequences of what they do. We too insulate our consciousness from the repugnant consequences of what we continue to do every day of our mundane lives and the truly hideous world we have created and maintain. For sure, terrorists need to change. But we need to change even more.

The future need not be an extension of the past or the present. It can be shaped, decolonized and made more equitable and just. But to shape a future free from terrorism we must realize that the ‘war on terror’ is not a war at all. It is cultural politics. It is a struggle to create cultural space for other ways of knowing, being and doing. It is a politics of visibility that brings the inhuman consequences of our policies and action into sharper focus. It is personal exertion to live a more sustainable and humane life. It is an attempt to addresses the politics of identity that accompanies neo-liberal globalization. In the end, a terrorism-free future begins with our Selfs."

Ziauddin Sardar
Catherine
QUOTE
‘Evil terrorists’ perform horrendous acts of carnage by insulating their conscious awareness from the emotional consequences of what they do. We too insulate our consciousness from the repugnant consequences of what we continue to do every day of our mundane lives and the truly hideous world we have created and maintain. For sure, terrorists need to change. But we need to change even more.


The Bush administration is working hard with the corporate-owned media to make sure we know as little as possible about the "repugnant consequences" of the so-called "war on terror."

If it wasn't for the Internet, we'd know only what they wanted us to know....and very little of that.

kindoki, do you have a link to your Terrorists R Us? I'd like to post it at other places.

Thanks.


Catherine



kindoki
the link:

Terrorists R Us

QUOTE
The Bush administration is working hard with the corporate-owned media to make sure we know as little as possible about the "repugnant consequences" of the so-called "war on terror."

If it wasn't for the Internet, we'd know only what they wanted us to know....and very little of that.


Yes the internet is a powerful tool, though it will have little effect on a citizen that has been brainwashed by the mainstream media (most part of the American People). Because once a person has made up its mind on an issue, it will be very hard to change.
For a person to change, not only the right and true information must be presented, but also, the will to change, or the thirst for information, in other words, an open mind.

And lets not forget all the desinformation out there on the internet.
Is the government trying to manipulate, or somehow silence valuable online sources?
rexateyfor
THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS ARE IN D.C.
Catherine
Thanks, kendoki, for the link.

Here is a site you might be interested in perusing, not just for 9/11 information, but also for news usually ignored by the media:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/covering_up.html

Catherine

Catherine
QUOTE
THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS ARE IN D.C.


You're right, Rex...AND our tax dollars are supporting them. wall.gif

Catherine
AntiFlagWaver
The World's most dangerous terrorist? That's easy:

George W. Bush evil.gif
Locutus
Seriously folks...set aside all of your conceptions about "terror" and "09-11-01." 99% of all terror is state sponsored, intelligence agency, false flag covert ops. You want to learn about 09-11-01? Come visit us....

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/

I have also assisted in the production of this evidentiary disclosure:
user posted image

As well as on this one:
http://www.policestate21.com/
http://www.policestate21.com/911trailer.html

I was a police detective for 10 years...pretty damn neo-con oriented I was, donated to RNC, had a big blue W sign in my yard and an American flag on my mailbox...until...May 2004. And my life changed forever..

user posted image
JayHawk
How can we expect to make the right decisions without first having reviewed all available information on the subject ? There is plenty of information available. Locutus mentions some very good sources to start with. There is more out there.
Since 9-1-1, or 9/11 if you prefer, I've been out there hunting for more information because I just couldn't believe what went down that day. I found loads of information pointing to it being an inside job. I squeezed the web and found more and more of the same. I also found a load of deliberate dis-information. To cut this short, friends and family have been smirking at my tin-hat mannerism until very recently when I purchased one of the DVDs that is intended to dig further at what really happened on 9-1-1. I watched the DVD in the smugness of the living room ( die gute Stube ! ) on our not-yet-plasma TV along with the rest of the family without really giving them a chance to object to watching daddy's tin-hat stuff beforehand. Low and behold, all the talking I did sonce 9-1-1 didn't sink into their minds as deeply as the DVD did. It's really weird. People have to see it coming off the TV if they're expected to believe it. It's like, "if they don't say so on TV then it can't be true". Okay, okay, ....insert DVD and here we go folks. Fact is, the inside job went exactly according to plan. The lie is so big, most of us went for it. Hitler mentioned the importance of lies being BIG lies in his first book "Mein Kampf". I think it was his first. I'm really growing tired of having to explain things to people but it's my duty. The vast majority of the public is still walking around with there heads full of lies. The biggest lie = 9-1-1. The information is not being spread far enough. The questions, the still open and unanswered questions are not being answered and noone seems to care or notice.

If it's TV you need to show you "the truth", get one of the DVDs. Watch it objectively. Smirk and laugh when they go off track. But also be ready to weep when they hit on the truth or even a small piece of it. Be ready for a shock. Have a bucket with some water in it ready, by your side 'cause if ....IF by chance you do see through the fog of dis-information and lies, you just might have to puke.

Another alternative is for you to just keep on swiming in the illusions and lies. It's an easier life for the fool. It's easier to have others decide your fate. No matter if right or left or inbetween, if we don't come together to get the truth out we're screwed folks !
Catherine
Those DVDs are awesome. I received a few in the mail, unsolicited, from Reopen9/11.org

Absolutely incredible evidence that 9/11 was NOT what we'd all thought it was.

I'm still making copies of them (permission granted on the labels) and passing them around to people.

Catherine
JayHawk


Yippery, nothing like a couple of pictures to help me get the picture.

911 in Plane Site is a good one.

The webpage in itself is worth the visit. At first, I dismissed some of the info as bogus or too far-fetched, the Pentagon bit e.g. Then I heard the same theory from a totally different angle and voila : it could not have been a commercial airliner. No way José ! WTC Building No. 7. WTF ? Personally, I need no more proof. But like you, I'm trying to spread the word the best I can. I just can't believe the world is swallowing the lies bait & hook. It's at times like these that I can best understand the German people.

tamara
QUOTE (rexateyfor @ Monday, 16 May 2005, 9:00 am)
THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS ARE IN D.C.

i agree 100%

what is a terrorist? (animation)

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/terrorist.html


don't you think that we should determine the most dangerous terrorist by NUMBERS KILLED?

QUOTE
Definition of "Terrorist": Let's Have Some Clarity

October 5, 2001

"Terrorist" is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning.

This is a proposal to lend some clarity to the definition, and thus hopefully to the use, of the word "terrorist."

Currently, the term "terrorist" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence.  Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Alternatively, or sometimes even in conjunction with the foregoing, some people condemn any violence by a non-governmental entity -- whatever the target -- as terrorism, and approvingly label any action by a sovereign country's military forces  -- again, whatever the target -- as "military strikes" or the like.

In determining whether an act is "terrorist" or not, it would be more useful to eliminate subjective evaluations of the goals of the violence, and instead, utilize two other factors -- the expected result of the violence, and the nature of the actor -- to then distinguish among four different types of acts involving the application of force:

Expected result of the violence: Let's define a "terrorist" action as the use of violence where one would reasonably expect harm to innocent civilians.  This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.

Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government.  A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.

Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorist actions.  Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorist actions.

Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result.  On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.

Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism.  In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.

While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.

Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true.  But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board.  As with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.

And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions, the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorist" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.

Moreover, by not allowing the use of the term "terrorist" to be used as an "argument-closed" condemnation of guerrilla military actions, those discussing the situation will be forced to debate the merits or not of the goals of the guerrillas, not hide behind an inappropriate labeling of the guerrilla's tactics.

At the same time, guerrilla forces committing atrocities against civilians will be appropriately labeled "terrorists" and would not be able to deny being terrorists because of the alleged validity of their goals.

All in all, then, these suggested definitions would tend to force the parties involved to focus on avoiding harm to civilians, and to deal with the real issues at stake in their disputes -- two results I hope most people would welcome.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.