The term is used so vaguley and loosely, I would be interested to see if there was any legal definitions of it in any country or international organisation?
1 Answer
In a Nuthshell:
Terms like terrorists and extremists are potentially little more than propagandistic in nature, utilised by states to divert attention from their own actions.
Alleged "terrorists" are often seen as freedom fighters by their own peoples, opposing invasions in their lands and fighting asymmetrical wars against those with power.
Most who have been interviewed, videos/documents left behind or comments from the groups they work with or their families, indicate serious and substantive grievances, including atrocities at the hands of foreign powers, their troops and intelligence agents and the tyrant these powers support.
As an example, Bilal Abdullah was one of two terrorists behind the 2007 Glasgow airport attack in the UK and is currently serving a life sentence with a minimum of 32 years in the UK.
During his own testimony during trial, Bilal said his motivation was the destruction of Iraq, first through sanctions that included even medicine, the rise of childhood leukaemia which he blamed on depleted uranium armour-piercing shells used in the 1991 Gulf War and for destruction of infrastructure during the U.S. and British 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his words, Abdullah blamed the US and its allies for the deteriorating situation: "We understood the Americans were here for one reason - they were not liberators. We saw them in 1991, they were here for petrol and gas and we were happy. Take the petrol, fix the country, the price is worth it.
But the Americans didn't do that. They destroyed the infrastructure again."
These events, coupled with personal calamities such as his sister's nervous breakdown brought him to a turning point. Seemingly overcome by personal guilt and his powerlessness on a hospital ward, he decided to support the insurgency:
"My political views changed dramatically towards the [British] government. They shared in murdering my people. It was the British government and American government. Without Blair, Bush couldn't have invaded Iraq."
answered
by
Zaf
(75.7k points):
Masters in Education from Nottingham University, qualified teacher in the UK. Has studied Masters in Islamic Studies also Islamic Banking and Finance. Interests in Politics/History/Philosophy.
Masters in Education from Nottingham University, qualified teacher in the UK. Has studied Masters in Islamic Studies also Islamic Banking and Finance. Interests in Politics/History/Philosophy.
Helpful
Unhelpful
In a Nuthshell:
Terms like terrorists and extremists are potentially little more than propagandistic in nature, utilised by states to divert attention from their own actions.
Alleged "terrorists" are often seen as freedom fighters by their own peoples, opposing invasions in their lands and fighting asymmetrical wars against those with power.
Terms like terrorists and extremists are potentially little more than propagandistic in nature, utilised by states to divert attention from their own actions.
Alleged "terrorists" are often seen as freedom fighters by their own peoples, opposing invasions in their lands and fighting asymmetrical wars against those with power.
Most who have been interviewed, videos/documents left behind or comments from the groups they work with or their families, indicate serious and substantive grievances, including atrocities at the hands of foreign powers, their troops and intelligence agents and the tyrant these powers support.
As an example, Bilal Abdullah was one of two terrorists behind the 2007 Glasgow airport attack in the UK and is currently serving a life sentence with a minimum of 32 years in the UK.
During his own testimony during trial, Bilal said his motivation was the destruction of Iraq, first through sanctions that included even medicine, the rise of childhood leukaemia which he blamed on depleted uranium armour-piercing shells used in the 1991 Gulf War and for destruction of infrastructure during the U.S. and British 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his words, Abdullah blamed the US and its allies for the deteriorating situation:
"We understood the Americans were here for one reason - they were not liberators. We saw them in 1991, they were here for petrol and gas and we were happy. Take the petrol, fix the country, the price is worth it.These events, coupled with personal calamities such as his sister's nervous breakdown brought him to a turning point. Seemingly overcome by personal guilt and his powerlessness on a hospital ward, he decided to support the insurgency:
But the Americans didn't do that. They destroyed the infrastructure again."
"My political views changed dramatically towards the [British] government. They shared in murdering my people. It was the British government and American government. Without Blair, Bush couldn't have invaded Iraq."
Categories
What we provide!
Vote Content
Great answers start with great insights. Content becomes intriguing when it is voted up or down - ensuring the best answers are always at the top.
Multiple Perspectives
Questions are answered by people with a deep interest in the subject. People from around the world review questions, post answers and add comments.
An authoritative community
Be part of and influence the most important global discussion that is defining our generation and generations to come
Join Now !