Ben Ladin disproves your theory of poverty leading to terrorism. He grew up wealthy.

Do you think poverty gives someone an excuse for terrorism or what? Are you condoning poor people who commit terrorist acts?

Traditionally, no; Wars and soldiers do not fall under terrorism and terrorists.

I don't think you can put a definition in a box and say that is what a terrorist is. With idiots like these whose actions are fluid, as soon as you put a label on them, they can change their tactics so you have to find a different label. Right now, terrorists are Muslims idiots killing innocent people and waging a war against an elected government in Iraq. Terrorists in Palestine are waging a war against Israel because they will not recognize Israel as a nation. Terrorists in Canada were going to blow up who know what. All we know is that a faction of the muslim religion is at war with anyone and everyone who they disagree with.

Bin laden is rich and crazy.. i would like to see him disposed of too. But the fact that he has SUPPORT ( which is what makes him a SUCCESSFUL terrorist) is because of poverty , illiteracy and exploitation.

While i do not condone violence EVER, one must understand the root cause of violence and seek to cure that. That means less exploitation of client states, it means less bullying of those who are weaker, it mean less support for dictators... you know the spiel.

The only way america can ever stop terrorist acts against itself will be by fair treatment of the rest of the world. If people do not feel exploited, why would they want to kill you ?

Not exploiting somebody is not the same as bending over and taking it up the butt.. please understand that the world is NOT black or white.. it's in technicolor

He's trying to get you to make US soldiers equivolent to muslim terrorists. Hogwash. US soldiers and Iraq soldiers are defending an elected government by the people of Iraq. No one elected the terrorists to fight for them. The terrorists are fighting to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and establish a government like the Taliban had in Afghanistan where they can shoot women in the back of the head for not covering their face or some other lunacy.

Would you be able to understand it if i told you that america looks the exact same to us?

What you have just said is that "terrorist" is a purely subjective term you apply to somebody who may cause you harm. By that VERY SAME definition, all countries that have ever been messed with by the USA, can call americans terrorists.

why is that?

All "terrorists" call themselves soldiers too

How can it be a fairly elected government when the country is still in a state of war?

ALso who the FUCK elected the US to come and save the iraqis?

Lastly, take care of your own damn country before you start fixing others. I think you told me that once. And i think it's a fair criticism.

P.S. i would like you to tell me what characteristics differ US soldiers from the so-called terrorists. it shouldn't be hard to tell the two apart should it?

Since you just equated criminals to terrorists I think you have to give him a point.

Terrorism at a basic level is a form of violence enacted for political ends. While it necessarily involves the killing of innocent civilians (though military targets are common), the actual target is the population of the attacked state, the desired effects involve mass media (the terrorist cause is made known to the world) and the shaping of the attitude of the target population. For example, a picture on the front page of every British newspaper of two British lieutenents, blindfolded and shot in the head execution style was the final straw for the British people and was the decisive factor for Jewish terrorists getting the British army out of Israel and Palestine.

One who engages in such activities and is undoubtedly tied to the ideologies of the various group. Their ideologies are inherently radical because they call for action that do not follow the Clausewitzian rules of war. Nonetheless, their political ends are not attainable with conventional military. Thus terrorists became known as those who commit such acts of terrorism. The first terrorists were Robespierre and his regime during the French Revolution. These first terrorists were called so because the power of their regime revolved around the use of terror as a tactic to control the population. Later original terrorists were those in Russia who plotted the various assasinations to end monarchy there. Now, American people generally perceive terrorist as radical Islamists, those engaged in so called jihad but are really, when one looks at the vast majority of the Muslim world population, engaged in hirabah, or unholy war. There are still many ethnonationalist terrorist groups such as the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Basque ETA, and some leftist-communists in South America. This is the kind of terrorism that was propelled by the mass media, most notably at Munich in 1972 with the PLO.

When political situations are dire, and no other options exist, terrorism is seen as the only means of asserting any political power in order to enact change. One of the most commonly stated reasons, an idea that is echoed by many terrorists, is that terrorists, if successful, will be remembered and indeed defined as patriots. A deep personal bond to a political ideology or end is all that is needed. In situations where the pursuit of any other life is very hard, if not impossible, terrorism can gain a lot of strength, most commonly with young men, not surprisingly.

Not within the definitions of war and justified reactive action. Consider also that terrorism necessarily involves the targeting of a larger population, not just the immediate victims of an attack. Appeal to the mass media is also critically important, if not the most important. 1972 Munich was at the Olympics, one of the greatest stages for worldwide media coverage. Much of its genius is within that fact, not to mention the killing of the country's star atheletes, a direct attack on the hearts of the Israeli population.