What is Terrorism and Who gets to define the term?

[Rivka]

As a western woman, the definition of terrorism is something that fascinates me. I want to know if there is any valid, objective definition of terrorism.

I find it interesting that in media the choice of words is very selective. When someone here in west barge into school and kills hundreds of innocent children, the news often comes out as 'gunman massacred children at primary school'. I guess most would agree that this is a terrorist act but it is never labeled as an act of terrorism. So does it mean, an individual's action cannot be deemed as such and for it to qualify the action must be carried out by an organised group?

Hate group is another word which I find very confusing. Are hate groups, terrorist groups too? KKK is often labeled as a hate group but in fact their actions were the same as any terrorist group. If you have to ask someone to name a few terrorist groups you would like get ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda and Taliban as the answer. Most people wouldn't even think of our North American grown KKK as a bunch of terrorists. Does it mean that for terrorism to qualify, a group has to be an alien agency threatening western democracies?

[Lance, Group Founder]

Rivka wrote: "As a western woman, the definition of terrorism is something that fascinates me. I want to know if there is any valid, objective definition of terrorism.

I find it interesting that in media the c..."

Good points Rivka. The same debate is happening in Australia at present following yesterday's "Lone Wolf" incident that saw two hostages killed (in Sydney).

[James, Group Founder]

Rivka wrote: "As a western woman, the definition of terrorism is something that fascinates me. I want to know if there is any valid, objective definition of terrorism.

I find it interesting that in media the c..."

Very savvy observations, Rivka.

[James, Group Founder]

Seems like they use the word terrorism when it suits them

[Kelly]

https://www.secure.nsw.gov.au/Legisla...

However most 'terrorist' attacks are usually organised by the government or agencies as an excuse to change laws or go to war. If an attack was not a false flag attack, they probably would have chosen the G20 summit in Brisbane instead of Martin Place. Huge impact, plenty of attention. They said on the news early during the seize that ASIO knew that Martin Place was going to be targeted and that there will be more attacks after.

[J.M.]

I think there is a considerable overlap between the descriptions of people as terrorists, murderers or serial killers when looking individual acts of random killing or premeditated murder. For me, the description of someone as a terrorist applies to someone who belongs to a group dedicated to achieving their aims through the act of causing terror and mayhem particularly by the random act of killing, as we have seen in so many terrorist acts in the last two decades or longer. I live in the UK so have no direct knowledge of the KKK although I have regarded them as terrorists too, because of the organised nature of their 'club' and the way in which they have acted to cause terror to a particular group of people, in this case simply because of skin colour. (I've always found that a ridiculous reason for hating anyone). Lone crazed killers such as the school killing example, in my view, are different. They cause terror but don't necessarily use it as the main weapon to achieve any end,; it seems to me their motives are simply the act of killing itself. As I type I realise there are many ways of interpreting the motives of those who slaughter other people and as I said at the beginning, plenty of overlaps. I don't think it's so easy to make clear-cut definitions about who is a terrorist and who isn't, when looking at people who kill for the sake of killing.

[James, Group Founder]

J.M. wrote: "I think there is a considerable overlap between the descriptions of people as terrorists, murderers or serial killers when looking individual acts of random killing or premeditated murder. For me, ..."

Agreed - the lines blur with terms like terrorists and it often depends who is telling the story as to who the terrorists are. I'd never considered throwing serial killers into the mix, but actually your observation makes perfect sense - such killers are lone terrorists.

The way I see, there are domestic terrorists like the KKK, as you point out. Then there are regional terrorists of the religious variety with suicide bombers etc. Then (in my opinion) there are global terrorists with big superpowers terrorizing vulnerable and isolated nations where supposedly the religious terrorists are hiding out...

I would say the superpower nations are the biggest terrorists, especially if you do a body count of all their carnage around the planet in the last few decades.

[J.M.]

Good points and broadly I agree with those definitions of global powers terrorising smaller nations, but it's not so easy - so many factors play into the decisions to wage war, as you say sometimes it depends on the viewpoint. One could point the finger at virtually any big power and accuse it of terrorism with regard to smaller countries: eg Russia with Afghanistan in the 1980s, France and Algeria, China and Tibet, UK and India springs to mind, US being on the wrong side ethically in several conflicts. That's not even touching on the Second World War. On the balance side some powers step in (like in Sierra Leone)to help those who are definitely being oppressed. It's not all a one-way street, although some people (not you) like to portray situations as though they are all one-way. That's my opinion, anyway.

[James, Group Founder]

Good historical observations J.M. and all very valid.

I would only add that the West's "War on Terror", which has no end in sight and which no two journalists or politicians seem to be able to agree on a suitable definition for, is taking counterterrorism or terrorism (depending on your viewpoint) to a whole new level in my opinion.

When everything is leaked and Wikileaked, I do wonder who the history books will eventually record as being the biggest terrorists of the 21st Century...

[J.M.]

Well, this is going to be controversial because I don't hold WikiLeaks or Manning or Snowden as heroes, in fact to the contrary, and I'll tell you why. Journalists and non-intel people are definitely NOT qualified to say which bits of intelligence are 'safe' to reveal in public and which aren't. Here is an example from personal experience. I have done extensive research into all aspects of military and intelligence life here in the UK. I went through some pretty obscure sources on the internet (one of which has subsequently been removed) and using those obscure sources I put together two pieces of information and came up with something I probably should not have known, the location of a secret SF group (they have probably moved by now). I'm not trained in intel or military life, which is why I had to research it. Now if I can put together two pieces of info like that how much more do people think the Russians, or Iran, or terrorists for that matter, will be able to glean from all the obscure pieces of information leaked from those three sources? Much more damaging information - especially in the quarter million files Snowden stole. That's the real danger, not the fact that the US and UK intel services were spying on each others' citizens where it was allowed by warrant or mutually agreed, and which was known to all except the general public. Even I knew that long before it made the tabloids or other Press. Let's leave aside the spying on people like Angela Merkel and anyone innocent, which should not happen. Huge damage has been done by Snowden and others in leaking intel files on a whole range of other subjects. I think further down the line when people realise what has occurred they will not regard them as heroes but as misguided at best and traitors at worst. What they supposedly revealed regarding intel-gathering in bulk was known for years and was even reported in the Press when talking about Echelon and Dictionary, the machines that sift through millions of media daily looking for code words or red flags. It's what else they stole and leaked that is the problem. Sorry, rant over.

[Martin]

James Morcan wrote: "J.M. wrote: "I think there is a considerable overlap between the descriptions of people as terrorists, murderers or serial killers when looking individual acts of random killing or premeditated mur..."

There are many terrorist groups in the US that the media will not address as terrorist groups. The KKK is just one of them. Christian Identity is another, one which Tim McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing was a member. Sovereign Nation, whic opposes taxes and central government, is another. There are many more, many church-based like the anti-abortionist movement. The US media prefers to refer to these groups as "hate groups" rather than terrorist groups because their members tend to make up the 20% of US voters who are the Republican Party's base, not to mention Fox News viewers.

I don't have the statistics at hand, but in recent years more police officers have been killed by these right-wing terror group than from gang violence, drug raid, whatever. Also, more Americans have been killed by right-wing terror groups since 9/11 than by any Islamic terror group.

Nevertheless, the media (and the Republicans) refused to call these groups terrorist. On the other hand, left-wing environmental action groups are repeatedly referred to by both as terror groups, though the vast majority of them are not involved in violent actions.

[J.M.]

James Morcan wrote: 'Nevertheless, the media (and the Republicans) refused to call these groups terrorist. On the other hand, left-wing environmental action groups are repeatedly referred to by both as terror groups, though the vast majority of them are not involved in violent actions.'
I think we are broadly agreed on those points. I've noticed that as well, especially in Canada where the First Nation folks are sometimes referred to as terror groups when they are trying to stop their homeland from being bulldozed in the name of oil and fracking operations. In the UK we hear very little about the right-wing US groups although my brother has told me a fair bit about them. In my view anyone who resorts to killing or threatening to kill in order to achieve their aims is bordering on being a murderer or a terrorist.

[J.M.]

Sorry, I replied to Martin as James Morcan, just noticed the error. My mistake!

[James, Group Founder]

J.M. wrote: "It's what else they stole and leaked that is the problem. Sorry, rant over. ..."

Rants always welcome, J.M. - actually, I've been known to write one or two rants myself on topics I feel passionate about!

Regarding Wikileaks, I wasn't so much commenting on the morality of the likes of Assange or Snowden or Manning, or commenting whether they should be held up as heroes or villains. Rather, in the context of this discussion about who are the real terrorists, I was just referring to the damning evidence those three controversial individuals have leaked (rightly or wrongly) to the mainstream public about the Military Industrial Complex's little-known terroristic actions in the "War on Terror".

And so I simply wonder, in say 100 or 500 years from now, when presumably what needs to be declassified would have been declassified by then and the propaganda machine would have waned, which nation or group of nations will historians refer to as being the primary terrorists of the early 21st Century?

Once the emotions die down, things will become clearer to the mainstream public in time, I suspect. However, until such a time, for the victimized citizens of mineral-rich nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (and Iran?), the professions of doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, hospital workers, undertakers and especially counter-drone specialists are likely to remain in very high demand ;)

[J.M.]

One thing I have learned is that the intel world is murky - John Le Carre wrote about that very effectively and I love his books. Motives, counter-motives, double-crosses and so on make it difficult for anyone to really fathom the truth in most situations. Hmm, not sure if anyone is mining anything apart from setting minefields in Afghanistan as all those countries mentioned are too dangerous for Western nations to be involved in, mostly. I'm definitely not saying the West is beyond reproach regarding what it does in those places, it's far from that. What I have learned is that when it comes to 'interests' it's a pretty selfish game of 'me first'. The trouble is, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and Iran the citizens of those countries are victims first and foremost of their own governments. Plus most countries are now using their own drones....and I agree with most what you say, anyway. I have to go now, it's been very interesting discussing this, thanks.

[James, Group Founder]

J.M. wrote: "I think we are broadly agreed on those points. I've noticed that as well, especially in Canada where the First Nation folks are sometimes referred to as terror groups when they are trying to stop their homeland from being bulldozed in the name of oil and fracking operations. In the UK we hear very little about the right-wing US groups although my brother has told me a fair bit about them. In my view anyone who resorts to killing or threatening to kill in order to achieve their aims is bordering on being a murderer or a terrorist. ..."

Similar to referring to First Nation or Native American environmental activists as terrorists, I recall Nelson Mandela was officially referred to as a terrorist for decades by the minority White South African government under the Apartheid regime...
Now, Mandela is universally remembered as being one of the world's most important human rights campaigners and peace activists in history.

Also, under President Reagan in the 1980s, the Taliban (trained, armed and funded by the CIA and several other Western intel agencies including MI6) were called Freedom Fighters when they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

So apparently individuals and groups can be terrorists in one era and upholders of freedom in another, or vice versa.

[James, Group Founder]

Martin wrote: "I don't have the statistics at hand, but in recent years more police officers have been killed by these right-wing terror group than from gang violence, drug raid, whatever. Also, more Americans have been killed by right-wing terror groups since 9/11 than by any Islamic terror group. ..."

Yes, those are certainly statistics the Military Industrial Complex-supporting mainstream media would not want to promote as it undermines the foreign enemy theme.

And if this statistic you mentioned is correct - that 20% of US voters in the Republican Party's base are comprised of the Far Right McVeigh-style terror groups - then that's really scary!!

Perhaps this means Donald Trump should grow a very subtle Hitler moustache if he wants to quietly pick up and extra 20% of voters and become the winning candidate for the GOP? :)

[James, Group Founder]

J.M. wrote: "not sure if anyone is mining anything apart from setting minefields in Afghanistan as all those countries mentioned are too dangerous for Western nations to be involved in..."

The war-torn regions you refer to are certainly too dangerous for Western governments to OFFICIALLY set up shop and mine such countries of oil, other minerals and drugs. However, they are not too dangerous for Western intelligence agencies to reap the spoils of war (which they achieve in various ways including with third-party "deniable" contractors). In fact, once a region is "war-torn" and "hot" and "dangerous" this is when the likes of the CIA really come into their own and completely decimate countries and suck out every single precious resource those countries have. Remember, it is infinitely easier to control a nation's resources once a region has been divided and conquered (not to mention when US-installed puppet Presidents like Afghanistan's President Karzai are in "power").

So if we are to just look at Afghanistan alone, there is to start with the extremely lucrative heroin trade...Remember, the Taliban (who are assholes by the way) had completely decimated the poppy fields under their version of Sharia Law when they ruled Afghanistan and the heroin trade had almost completely dried up in the world's former #1 heroin producing country - it was close to zero. And yet, supposedly by "sheer coincidence" (according to the likes of Fox News!) the heroin trade after the West invaded Afghanistan is now at an all-time high. And which groups, intel agencies and nations make the most money from the Heroin trade? You guessed it, the West! The days of Oliver North-style nefarious CIA activities are not some distant bad behaivor of the past - they were simply a precursor to the far bigger crimes being committed on the world stage right now.

For anyone interested, this news article by Global Research is a good intro on the booming heroin trade in Afghanistan:
The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade -- Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoi...

But wait, there's more when it comes Afghanistan! Oh yes, we are talking one of the biggest money grabs in history here, people, because Afghanistan also has multi-trillion dollar annual mining industry due to their rare deposits of superconducting minerals. Early on in the War on Terror, or many independent researchers have said BEFORE the War on Terror, the Pentagon identified Afghanistan as having the world’s largest deposits of lithium.

Check out the Ministry of Mines mentioned in Wikipedia's summary of current mining operations in Afghanistan and all the Western companies, contractors and "international aid" organizations (e.g. The World Bank) that are actively involved or supporting the massive amount of mining going on in that country right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_...

Note that Wikipedia mentions "It is believed that among other things the country holds $3 trillion in untapped mineral deposits. In December 2013, President Karzai claimed the mineral deposits are actually worth $30 trillion."

And also this excellent NY Times article from almost a decade ago:
U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wor...

Here's an excerpt from the above (now dated) NY Times article:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."

Now, remember also, all the above is just for how much revenue is being generated by invading Afghanistan alone. There is as much evidence out there to show that as much revenue (tens of trillions again) was received from invading Iraq when it comes to oil and minerals that flowed into Western interests.

So, let's make no mistake, the spoils of The War on Terror are most likely the biggest spoils of any war in history...

[Martin]

James Morcan wrote: "J.M. wrote: "not sure if anyone is mining anything apart from setting minefields in Afghanistan as all those countries mentioned are too dangerous for Western nations to be involved in..."

The war..."

Afghanistan and Pakistan were long-time centers of a CIA-financed drug trade going back to the age of the Golden Triangle and even before. Check this 1993 article from the New York Times (before it became a mouth-piece for the Bush Adm and GOP): http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/opi...

Afghanistan is also centrally located for the transport of oil from the former USSR states. When George W. Bush was governor of Texas (1995-2000), he feted representatives of the Taliban in the Governors Palace at the behest of Dick Cheney. Cheney's Haliburton wanted to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

[James, Group Founder]

Yep, good info, Martin.
Always nice to hear of Haliburton's humanitarian efforts!

I often reflect on how much more powerful the USSR was than modern-day Russia considering the former contained all these mineral-rich states (many ending in "stan").
Whoever helped make those states gain their "independence" from Russia, no doubt made a bit of money there also...

Anyway, speaking of planned pipelines thru the region, the last I heard the new Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (whose official financiers include the World Bank, USAID and no doubt has CIA involvement also) is about to start construction. That pipeline will transport enormous amounts of gas and oil from the Caspian Sea thru Afghanistan and into India (and then be shipped worldwide, I assume).

But I'd say the most lucrative spoil of war from invading Afghanistan would be the aforementioned $30 trillion dollars worth of rare superconducting minerals that nation has.

According to Wikipedia: "there are 1400 mineral fields, containing barite, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, natural gas, petroleum, precious and semi-precious stones, salt, sulfur, talc, zinc among many other minerals. Gemstones include high-quality emerald, lapis lazuli, red garnet and ruby."

[Martin]

James Morcan wrote: "And if this statistic you mentioned is correct - that 20% of US voters in the Republican Party's base are comprised of the Far Right McVeigh-style terror groups - then that's really scary!! "

James, I think you know I hold a national certification as homeland security specialist, so I keep up on this stuff and occasionally lecture on it. Just a couple of facts to emphasize the point:

1: During the Bush administration, the biggest terrorist bust made occurred in Texas. It involved right-wing terrorists armed with dozens of weapons, including machineguns and some 5,000 round of ammunition, and at least two completed, armed, and workable cyanide bombs. Despite the arrests and the discovery of the arsenal (by local police, not feds), it was never widely reported in the US and the Bush administration never mentioned it.

2: Early in the Obama administration, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning that the war in Iraq might radicalize some soldiers who might turn to terrorism. It was a sound conclusion. Tim McVeigh was radicalized by his service in Desert Storm. Several soldiers were radicalized by their service in Vietnam and came home to join terrorist groups like the Weathermen. The founder of the American Nazi Party also said his service in WWII radicalize him and led to his starting the ANP.

However, when the report became public, the Republican Party went ballistic, saying the Obama administration was attacking "American heroes" and such. The news media pretty much said the same thing. The administration was forced to remove that conclusion.

Since then, there have been several OIF veterans arrested on various terrorist or hate crime charges. In 2012, a group of active duty soldiers at an Army base in the US state of Georgia formed a right-wing militia called FEAR and planned to attack and kill their fellow soldiers, as well as assassinate President Obama. They did kill one member of their militia and his girlfriend after they had second thoughts. That's how they were stopped. Again, very little media attention and nothing from the Republicans.

[James, Group Founder]

Martin wrote: "James, I think you know I hold a national certification as homeland security specialist, so I keep up on this stuff and occasionally lecture on it. Just a couple of facts to emphasize the point: ..."

Thanks Martin, you've revealed a bit of inside info from Homeland Security on domestic terrorism that most of the public are probably not aware of.

I also recommend a movie from the late 1990's called Arlington Road, starring Jeff Bridges and Tim Robbins, which subtly shows how these type of Far Right domestic terrorists can sometimes be living normal lives in regular neighborhoods rather than in isolated NeoNazi-style communes.

Here's the film's trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzzT_...

[J.M.]

I came back to this out of interest and a lot has been written. One point from James Morcan: 'Nelson Mandela was officially referred to as a terrorist for decades by the minority White South African government under the Apartheid regime...
Now, Mandela is universally remembered as being one of the world's most important human rights campaigners and peace activists in history.'
Much as I loathe the notion of apartheid Nelson Mandela was involved in killings at the time he was in the ANC, something that was subsequently airbrushed out of recent history so the label of terrorist at that time was probably appropriate. But you are right, history alters labels according to who tells the history. The Taliban in the 1980s were apparently just as savage as they are now with their beheadings and torture.

[Martin]

J.M. wrote: "I came back to this out of interest and a lot has been written. One point from James Morcan: 'Nelson Mandela was officially referred to as a terrorist for decades by the minority White South Africa..."

There is an old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

In 1946, the Jewish Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing some 90 people. That was one of dozens of similar Irgun attacks. One of the Irgun leaders, Menachem Begin later became prime minister of Israel.

One of the US Republican Party leaders on homeland security matters is Rep. Peter King. King was an ardent supporter of the Irish Republican Party, and once compared Sinn Fien leader Gerry Adams to George Washington. King was a member of NORAID, and has been accused of financing IRA operations and suspected of providing weapons to the IRA. Today, King is a Republican major voice against Muslims, all of whom he suspects of being terrorists.

It seems terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[J.M.]

'It seems terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.'

Exactly. It's been like that throughout history as far as I've seen from reading over the years.

[J.M.]

Read the Global Research article about the heroin trade; some very interesting points, some of which I knew and some I didn't know. Once again, John Le Carre (who was an intel officer in MI6 or the SIS in the UK) covers this subject very well in his book The Night Manager, though it is not set in Afghanistan.

[John]

Martin wrote: "J.M. wrote: "I came back to this out of interest and a lot has been written. One point from James Morcan: 'Nelson Mandela was officially referred to as a terrorist for decades by the minority White..."

Nelson was listed as a terrorist by the US government up until 2008!!!
Lets try to define terrorism with regard to an occupying power/force.
D Day 6th of June 44 would NOT have been a success were it not for the activities of the French/Italian/Dutch/Yugoslav/Polish and many other "resistance movements". They frustrated German troops to a great extent,
Were they resistance fighters or terrorists??????
The Geneva Convention, Article 4 on Occupied Territories states, "An occupied population has the right of resistance against the occupying forces".
This is something that should be taken into account in many countries now!!!
Re the heroin trade, "black money for black ops" exactly the same as during the Contra Affair except that was Cocaine.
The problem is that the "entrepreneurs" amongst the military and spooks tend to go for some private enterprise as well!

[John]

By the way, i knew Nelson and his ex wife Winnie personally, he was one of the most incredible men i have ever had the honour of meeting!
As for Winnie, she kept the ANC alive whilst Nelson was on Robin Island, she had a horrific life under apartheid, being moved to a new town/village every six months under the banishment act to prevent her building up associates.
A lot has been said about her and the murder of Stompie, the police informer.
Lets look at this in its correct context, regardless of what movement, IRA, UDA, PLO, PFLP, ETA, and many other movements across the world, police informants if they are caught are killed, they know the risk, they take the risk.
Why should the case of Stompie be any different?

[James, Group Founder]

Yeah, I agree with you 100% regarding Mandela.
Key thing to remember is Mandela with charged with being a terrorist by a white racist South African government in the 1960s.
It is highly debatable Mandela actual ever carried out any legitimate terrorism...despite what Dick Cheney believes about Mandela!

[John]

James Morcan wrote: "Yeah, I agree with you 100% regarding Mandela.
Key thing to remember is Mandela with charged with being a terrorist by a white racist South African government in the 1960s.
It is highly debatable M..."

Your correct James, Nelson NEVER committed any terrorist act, he certainly broke the law regarding being in a group of more than four people.
But yet again, it brings an interesting point, who were the rightful inhabitants of South Africa?

[James, Group Founder]

Good points, John.
Also, Mandela (to my knowledge) never plead guilty to any terrorist charges. They were only ever claimed by the Apartheid regime...Which in my mind holds about as much credibility as a Jewish person being charged with theft during Nazi Germany...

I recently read an article on Mandela by Forbes Magazine, a publication who As you know are right wing and not afraid to point out uncomfortable truths. Anyway Forbes journalists researched Mandela's life and concluded there was no evidence to show he ever committed terrorism.

[John]

James Morcan wrote: "Good points, John.
Also, Mandela (to my knowledge) never plead guilty to any terrorist charges. They were only ever claimed by the Apartheid regime...Which in my mind holds about as much credibilit..."

As far as i know he didn't either!
Steve Biko didn't get the chance to plead!

[J.M.]

J M said: 'Much as I loathe the notion of apartheid Nelson Mandela was involved in killings at the time he was in the ANC, something that was subsequently airbrushed out of recent history so the label of terrorist at that time was probably appropriate.'
James Morcan said: 'Also, Mandela (to my knowledge) never plead guilty to any terrorist charges.'
According to many reports he formed the MK, the military wing of the ANC and led it during the time when it was carrying out acts that led to the deaths of civilians. From a Daily Telegraph report:
"MK carried out numerous bombings during the next 20 years and the pledge not to kill became redundant – in the whole campaign, at least 63 people died and 483 people were injured." Mandela was in charge of the MK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

And here is another longer and seemingly fairly balanced report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...

There are several other reports that also say the same thing, but the point here, which is illustrated very well by what people have been saying, is about who defines a terrorist and by what terms do we define terrorists?

As for Nelson Mandela everyone can conclude that he was an extraordinary man and that he changed considerably while in prison. I think it's important to acknowledge that while he is now regarded as close to being saintly, there was more to the situation in the times before he was released - and that does NOT mean that acknowledging that means either supporting apartheid or the policies of the SA government of the tine, nor does it mean he was some kind of monster. We go right back to square one in this debate, about what defines a terrorist and who can be regarded as such.

[John]

J.M. wrote: "J M said: 'Much as I loathe the notion of apartheid Nelson Mandela was involved in killings at the time he was in the ANC, something that was subsequently airbrushed out of recent history so the la..."

JM, i appreciate your post, let me say firstly that from 1995 until 2010 i seved with the Directorate of Special Operations in South Africa, based in the HQ at Silverton Pretoria. My rank was Colonel and i was in Narco/Terrorism investigations mainly concerned with UC operations into heroin being trafficked by terrorist groups via South Africa to Europe and the US.
During that time i met many still serving SAPS officers and retired CCB officers.
Nelson was NOT involved with the MK, his ex wife Winnie was the head of the MK and had the rank also of Commandant.
Before 1995 i worked for a different Western Government Intelligence agency, during my duties i traveled to South Africa during apartheid especially during the late 80's early 90's.
The telegraph newspaper was an "establishment" newspaper, much of what it did report and currently reports are highly biased and certainly not "correct stories".
Regarding what defines a terrorist,
The loose definition is, "Someone who uses terror to enforce a political objective".
Therefor the apartheid regime of Jon Vorster, Pik Botha and others certainly fall into that description, as does the Israeli government under Netanyahu that uses extra judicial assassinations, extra territorial assassinations, piracy in international waters, use of chemical weapons on civilians, use of cluster bombs in civilian area's.
Also the US government must also fall into the category of "terrorist" because of its use of drone warfare to attack civilian locations, its rendition and torture activities and its constant efforts to destabilize sovereign governments across the world.
So what is terrorism and a terrorist???
As Martin said, it depends which side of the fence you are on!!!

[J.M.]

John said: 'The loose definition is, "Someone who uses terror to enforce a political objective".
So what is terrorism and a terrorist???
As Martin said, it depends which side of the fence you are on!!!'
Thanks for an interesting post, John. Nelson not being involved with the MK is something that obviously differs according to reports. I agree with what you said - it depends which side of the fence you are on. And what you read. Since there are equally biased accounts of conflicts reported according to left or right bias, I have learned that a person can read anything into reports according to pre-held beliefs and what the media is fed. Also since the people doing the feeding have their own agendas and Press and TV manipulation is essential to control of propaganda, in certain scenarios it's almost impossible to discern what the 'truth' is. Like history and viewpoints it depends on who is doing the telling and who saw what. I think we can broadly agree on that.

[John]

Yes JM i think we broadly agree!!
As you say, the actual reporting of the facts and the bias given to them depend entirely on the leaning of the news sources, or the leanings of the people who feed the news sources!
Yes Nelson certainly knew what the MK was doing, did he agree with what it was doing???? I really dont think so, in fact i know many people who would say he disagreed, however, he also stated that unless the apartheid atrocities stopped, then violence against the regime would be the only answer.
Did he actually take place in any actual acts of violence, NO he did not!

[James, Group Founder]

J.M., in post 23 you did say Mandela's history was "airbrushed" and that "the label of terrorist was probably appropriate"...And in earlier posts you did categorically say it's far too dangerous for the West to mine precious minerals from the likes of Afghanistan...

I agree with all the OTHER points you've made in this discussion but believe those comments I refer to above are off track.

With zero proof of Mandela being directly involved in any terroristic acts, he is simply a good example of how fascist or militaristic regimes, like the Apartheid govt or certain modern-day superpowers, can call anyone a terrorist and send them off to places like Robbin Island or Guantanamo.

Meanwhile, regarding Western govts, intel agencies & private companies in the West making trillions of dollars off the War on Terror via securing "conflict minerals" and acquiring other similar "spoils of war", I think you'll find the evidence is overwhelming.

You know the old saying: Follow the money!

[James, Group Founder]

John, I believe you're right that America's drone attacks which kill civilians would fit the definition of terrorism to a tee

[John]

Good posts James.
A lot of what we are discussing here, is as JM rightly says, subject to the connotations placed on various subjects by the news media.
Which again depend on who actually controls various elements of the media, lets take Murdoch for example, a very bad example of media that twists and changes the truth and distorts it for the benefit of Murdochs protege's.
Governments dictate to the media, if you watch the Whitehouse press briefings, they are almost laughable, the BBC certainly is not an accurate reporting machine.
So how is the average person supposed to know what is or isn't fact?
Lets just look at 9/11, the BBC reporter stating that Building 7 had collapsed and it was on the screen still standing behind her!

Regarding your last two paragraphs on msg 37, 100% correct, re msg 38, once again 100% correct and now Britain jumps onto the band wagon as well!

[John]

http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/24/...

WHO ARE THE TERRORIST's????
The US government who are desperately trying to remove Bashar al Assad from Syria,
Just as they did with Gaddafi and Saddam.

[J.M.]

James Morcan said: J.M., in post 23 you did say Mandela's history was "airbrushed" and that "the label of terrorist was probably appropriate"...And in earlier posts you did categorically say it's far too dangerous for the West to mine precious minerals from the likes of Afghanistan...I agree with all the OTHER points you've made in this discussion but believe those comments I refer to above are off track.'

Yes, I didn't come back on the subject of mining. I tried to answer but was so tired I gave up. What I was trying to say was that - not knowing a thing about modern methods of mining - I have my doubts about whether Western methods could safely be applied in such dangerous areas, so maybe any mining would be done by the Karzai regime? You might know more than I do on that score. Since the Karzai government is corrupt to the core, I would assume that if it's possible to mine there then he would be at the helm directing it and creaming money off the top. If the mining can be done by using Afghan methods or done securely by Western interests, it would be likely.

As for what I said about Mandela regarding his earlier history, which is what I was referring to, yes I think there has been some airbrushing in the rush to make him seem saintly. I would contend that he was human with all the failings that humans have, certainly in his younger days, and that doesn't make him any less of an extraordinary man considering what he did in his later years. I just think it's not right to apply a kind of censorship to someone who obviously was not a saint in his younger days. Who of us is a saint throughout our lives? It just seems to me to be an airbrushing of history since his death.

[J.M.]

"With zero proof of Mandela being directly involved in any terroristic acts"
That's where we disagree. It depends on which reports you read. At his trial he admitted to setting up the MK and admitted to being involved in what they did, which was terroristic acts.

I agree with the other comments about the SA regime of the time and also with the comments about terroristic acts as applied by countries, regardless of which country applies them. I can't think of a single country that doesn't have such skeletons in its history, UK included.

[John]

Well JM, Halliburton has a lot of the contracts in Afghan now.
Karzai is out, his brother the governor from the Helmond Province was one of the largest heroin smugglers, no need really to smuggle it!!

During Mandela's young days, certainly he conspired to organise demonstrations/strikes but he id not take up a firearm and plant explosives. He was a lawyer and he fought mainly using the law and international law!

[J.M.]

"WHO ARE THE TERRORIST's????
The US government who are desperately trying to remove Bashar al Assad from Syria,
Just as they did with Gaddafi and Saddam."

Okay, but look at what Assad is doing to his own people. It's a huge mess out there with US airstrikes, Islamic State, Khorasan group(AQ by any other name) plotting attacks on the West, other AQ groups, rebels armed and trained by the US and let's not forget the Russians who are secretly supporting Assad. The trouble is that Gaddafi and Saddam, for all their heinous crimes against their own people and others, were also holding together the fabric of their countries by means of terrorising their citizens, and once they were removed the fabric fell apart because those who removed them didn't have sufficient power to hold things together.

[James, Group Founder]

Everyone deemed to be saintly is airbrushed I agree and like you I detest censorship of any kind - not to mention political correctness. My only reason to debate here (briefly) was connecting the airbrushing with confirmed terrorism concerning Mandela. Yes, he was violent in his early years and yes this has been airbrushed. But no Mandela was not ever proven guilty of being a terrorist - for that he would have had to have used bombs on innocent white civilians (not against the army).

[J.M.]

To add to my post no 43 (I think) the same will happen with Syria if Assad goes. It's a no-win situation out there.

[J.M.]

And of course, Karzai has gone. My bad. Replaced by others cut from the same cloth no doubt.

[J.M.]

"During Mandela's young days, certainly he conspired to organise demonstrations/strikes but he id not take up a firearm and plant explosives. He was a lawyer and he fought mainly using the law and international law!"

Until he saw he wasn't getting anywhere and set up the MK, which then used force.

I'm not trying to denigrate Mandela. He did a lot of good, and one of the most important things he did was to start the reconciliation process without which I think SA would also have fallen apart. The man was a genius in that regard. Plus I hated the apartheid system, just as I hated the oppression of black citizens of the US before racism was outlawed. (Yes, I know it still goes on but at least it isn't written in some rule book that black people can be stigmatised.)

[John]

J.M. wrote: ""WHO ARE THE TERRORIST's????
The US government who are desperately trying to remove Bashar al Assad from Syria,
Just as they did with Gaddafi and Saddam."

Okay, but look at what Assad is doing to..."

Sorry JM, this is a subject i know a fair amount about!!
Yes Syria was one of the most repressive police states in the ME under Haffaz al Assad, Bashar's father, Bashar's uncle, Rifat al Assad was basically head of intelligence, amazingly they had remarkable close links to the CIA, in fact the CIA used Monzar Kazar as their black market arms dealer supplying many embargoed regimes, Monzar also arranged shipments for Oliver North to Iran during the tensions in the early 80's, part of the Iran Contra affair,

When Bashar, a doctor who trained in London and married to a British wife, became President, he tried to restore democracy to Syria, he loosened the oppressive police regime,
BUT, and there is always a but<
The Syrian people held peaceful demonstrations, impatience being one reason, but a country cannot change overnight, now some reports say the military opened fire with just cause, NO CORRECT!!! People amongst the demonstrators were the first to open fire! A police and military trained for many previous years in total subjugation of a people automatically reacted.
It later surfaced but was not taken up by the US media but there were Syrian agitators who had been trained, armed and put in place by the CIA.
Why is Syria so important??
Major oil and Gas on the Golan heights which is occupied Syrian territory, an American company has the exploration rights, they want to run pipelines through Syria out to the sea!
Bashar al Assad is a good man, he won, in a election that was monitored and found fair, by a resounding majority!

Re the Russians, thy have been invited in by the Sovereign Government of Syria, they are there legitimately, unlike the CIA/SOF/MI6/SAS/ MOSSAD and many more.

Re if Assad goes, hello Libya number three, Iraq is number two at the moment with Afghan not far behind!

[Harry]

James said: "Yes, (Mandela) was violent in his early years and yes this has been airbrushed. But no Mandela was not ever proven guilty of being a terrorist - for that he would have had to have used bombs on innocent white civilians (not against the army)."

Absolutely. That's the crux of the matter.

Now, what about the fact that Tony Blair and Henry Kissinger, as well as many others in the west, have gone against international law and should be tried for war crimes?

And why is it that citizens' arrests on Blair are seen as a joke to many and ignored by the police, when legally he should be sat in a cell with some big, tattooed Scottish man called Keith?