Comment by accountswu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by accountswu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>There is a view that the US actions are unfair and unjust. >The delivery method is not terrorism but the end result is indistinguishable in terms of justness or fairness. For example, torturing a man not found guilty of any crimes.

How is the delivery method not terrorism? If a guy named Muhammad kills 12 ordinary civilians he is a terrorist but if a guy named Andy/Joe/Steve kills 12 / 112 people in Iraq / Afghanistan by going on a shooting spree / dropping a bomb on a civilian home / aspirin factory / wedding and its not terrorism? There was a Muslimy-named guy who killed American soldiers (not civilians) at Fort Hood and he was labelled a terrorist. The guy named James who has killed 12 civilians is not a terrorist, he is a "suspect".

1998 Clinton knowingly bombed the aspirin factory that provided cheap medicines to millions of Africans:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2...

Edit:

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/28/national_exclusive_hez...

<BEGIN QUOTE> In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us—this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group—they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.

After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says—one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

<END QUOTE>

Muslimy named guy at Fort Hood? He is a Muslim!

According to eyewitnesses, Hasan had taken a seat at an empty table and bowed his head for several seconds when he suddenly stood up, shouted "Allahu Akbar!"

And you completed ignored my point that:

when an American (white Christiany) kills innocent CIVILIANS (whether American civilians in Colorado or Iraqi or Afghan civilians) he is not called a terrorist

but when an American (brown, Muslimy) kills SOLDIERS he is called a terrorist.

What is terrorism? Killing soldiers (who are trained to kill people) or killing civilians (who did not sign up for any murder and terror)?

Or is terrorism the act when non-white folks (Americans or otherwise) or non-Christians or non-Americans kill anyone? Apparently it's not called terrorism when Bush kills 1 million people or Obama kills Afghan women and children who are celebrating at weddings.

Timothy McVey was was most certainly labeled a terrorist. Violent anti-abortionists who randomly murder doctors are labeled as terrorists.

Killing unarmed soldiers doing administrative work in their own country when they are not on combat duty is terrorism.

Obama trying to kill a terrorist and then accidentally killing civilians is not terrorism.

It all comes down to intent, no?

If you can't see the hypocrisy of the media then please ignore my post and move on. Is it a bigger crime to kill civilians or to kill soldiers? Is James the dozen-civilian-killer a terrorist or not? Media calls him a "suspect", why was the Fort Hood shooter not called a suspect while he was being investigated? Can't you see the pattern that if the murderers is a European / white American he is a "suspect" and if it's a brown American (like the Fort Hood killer) he is a "terrorist". Did you see the sympathetic posts about the person who went on a killing spree in Afghanistan? The poor guy had issues so we wanna consider that rather than call him a terrorist, how about the brown guys killing civilians, maybe they had issues? Maybe they had trauma from their folks being murdered or tortured? I am not justifying any crimes, I am only highlight how the media is justifying some crimes and calling other perpetrators terrorist from the get go.

>Obama trying to kill a terrorist and then accidentally killing civilians is not terrorism.

>It all comes down to intent, no?

Oh yeah, when we bomb wedding parties out intent is good, when they killed civilians their intent was bad, that was simple, now I get it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+wedding+bombed

Clinton knowingly bombed Sudan pharmaceuticals factory (I have posted the link somewhere on this page) and killed half million infants by sanctions alone (1996 UN estimate of the period 1991-1996), Bush knowingly went to Iraq when there was no link to any attack on US, Obama went into Libya for no good reason (oil contracts), Obama has killed hundreds of civilians in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan with unmanned drone attacks and his latest piece of art is to label all adult males present in the site where he wanted to bomb as "militants".

That's neat of Pres Obombya, Americans own the whole world; the Afghans, Somalis, Yemenis, Pakistanis just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so they are all terrorists. Let's kill them and call them militants unless proven otherwise (just imagine Osama using the same logic, oh there were bad guys in those buildings, the intent was to kill only those who were bombing Iraq).

http://www.juancole.com/2012/05/how-obama-changed-definition...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com