Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00150)

Morten Sufilight wrote:
> 1.
> The western view is often, that terrorism is - violent aggression by the use 
> of certain weapons (more or less dangerous), which almost immediately kills 
> the human targets. It is often a minor group of so-called political/religious 
> people, who are attacking a certain country, or a government, or another 
> society-important target. This could be termed as violent terrorism.
> (Others call it a defence against other kinds of terrorism made by the 
> victim).

A current definition of terrorism is military attacks specifically
directed at non-military personnel during a time when there is no state
of war. According to this definition, the attack on the World Trade
Center was terrorism, while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of
war. 


> 2.
> 
> The poor countries often state the view, that terrorism also is defined to 
> the issue, when the rich (western or western LIFESTYLE) countries continually 
> economically and politically oppress the poor countries. It is also called 
> food-terrorism.

Can you give a specific example of this?

> 3.
> The Middle Eastern countries (and others) has the view, the especially rich 
> countries (mostly western countries USA, EU etc.) act as what is called 
> Cultural Imperialists, which by trade and dollars etc. oppress other 
> countries cultures and EVEN religions. 

I guess, according to you, we should allow chattel slavery, lack of
human rights for women, butchering of those with other points of view,
torture, chemical and biological weapons. After all, it's their culture,
and who are we to interfere?

> The rich or western countries sort of flood for instance Middle Eastern 
> countries with products, which promote a lifestyle, which aggressively and 
> effectively undermines most Middle Eastern religions and lifestyles. 

Do you think those people are so stupid and easily led that they would
abandon their culture and religions for products? Would you? Do you
think that you're better than they are? 

> The situation is, that the dollar - $ - is the economically leading currency. 
> And because of that, and because of greed, we have the present situation in 
> the Middle East and elsewhere.

What's your point?

> Instead of that we have a so-called Security Council, which in its present 
> clearly biased form, (without any permanent members from Middle Eastern 
> countries), never will be able to create anything but trouble on matters 
> concerning the Middle East.

The Security Council was formed by those countries who enabled the
Middle East countries to be self-governing, rather than remain colonies.

Bart Lidofsky