Comments on: On Terrorism: Retail and Wholesale

By: Michael Prior

Michael Prior — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:18:39 +0000

Good article! I think that a better definition for “terrorism” is “terrifying people by deliberately causing severe destruction, or threatening it.”

By: hp

hp — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:24:33 +0000

Made possible by the complacency and apathy of the average man in the street.
how many ‘terrorist’ acts have occurred since the dubious 911?
Can anybody name even one? Just one.
From coast to coast, thousands of cities, towns and villages and not one single act of terrorism since the dubious 911.
Most likely because there doesn’t have to be any trains blown up, water supplies poisoned, fires set, bombs going off in malls, etc., etc., etc.
Simply the threat and the non stop propaganda suffices. Unfucking believable. A nation of cowardly lazy morons who look the other way from murderous criminal acts all the while having our rights and honor stripped away like so much paper clothing.
As for those ‘terrorist’ acts? Well if needed, really needed, I’m pretty sure those can be arranged..

By: HR

HR — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:34:07 +0000

The U.S. is indeed the world’s largest purveyor of terror, followed closely by Israel, and both of them get a free pass.

By: El Oaxuco

El Oaxuco — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:30:39 +0000

>>Wholesale terrorism — invasion and aerial warfare, for example — is the strategy of the haves. It has a bigger budget and cuts a huger swathe. By some magic consensus wholesale terrorism never, never gets called terrorism.<<

I would add to that the mass imprisonment of people such as the 11,000 plus Palestinians in Israel, most without charges, including minors. Not to mention Guantanamo. These tyrannical powers that imprison indiscriminantly and indefinitely–what do we call their crimes? Many prisoners are tortured with impunity. The agony faced by the families is indescribable? Palestinians’ only crime is not having the military firepower to defend themselves. If course if they did, there would be no occupation and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Thanks for this excellent peiece.

By: D.R. Munro

D.R. Munro — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:28:42 +0000

I think I can make the definition even more simple:

If a civilian, even one, ever dies for political gains or agendas – the state responsible is promoting and conducting terrorism.

The United States seems reluctant to recognize that the threat of military force as terrorism. I suppose because if they did, the US would easily be the world’s largest terrorist state.

It seems we make threats of aerial attacks and pre-emptive strikes to some of the world’s poorest, and most harmless, nations weekly. Nations that couldn’t even dream of defending themselves against the US, let alone provoking them.

Let’s face it, the last enemy we’ve taken on that was our size was Nazi Germany in the 1940s. Ever since then we’ve been the playgound bully, picking on emaciated economies for our gain.