First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Deutscher Herbst
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/09 , edited 11/10/09
The climax of the Red Army Faction* (an extreme anti-capitalist, left-wing terrorist cell,) insurgency in Germany came in the year 1977 and has since been dubbed, the Deutscher Herbst, or “German Autumn.”

It began with the abductions and murders of multiple German industrialists including Jurgen Ponto, president of Germany’s second largest bank. He and his wife had been descending the steps in front of their home, leaving for a family vacation, when three RAF assassins approached them. Amongst the gunmen was Ponto’s godchild, the sister of his daughter and the child, Susanne Albrecht. Susanne was symbolically carrying a bouquet of flowers when she and the other gunmen opened fire and shot Jurgen to death.

On September 5, 1977 the chauffer driver of Hanns-Martin Scheyler, president of both the BDA (Confederation of German Employers’ Association,) and BDI (Federation of German Industries,) was forced to slam on the breaks when an RAF operative pushed a baby carriage in front of their convoy. A wave of operatives then emerged from around the corner and sprayed the caravan with sub-machine-gun fire killing the driver and various other passengers, including police officers and civilians. The gunmen proceeded to abduct Scheyler. During negotiations for Scheyler’s release the RAF launched a joint operation with the Popular Front for Palestinian Liberation (calling themselves the Commando Martyr Halime,) to put added pressure on the German government.

On October 13, 1977 three terrorists being lead by a fourth, twenty three year old Palestinian radical Zohair Youssif Akache, hijacked Lufthansa Flight 181 and took the 91 passengers/crew members hostage. Zohair stormed the cockpit and introduced himself over the plain’s intercom system as “Captain Martyr Mahmud,” and radioed the joint demands of the RAF and the PFPL: the release of multiple RAF leaders and two Palestinian prisoners being held in Turkey as well as 15 million US dollars. Stopping to refuel in various Arab/Muslim and African nations including the UAE Zohair and his terrorists had the passengers douse in alcohol and taunted that “they would burn better,” this way. The plain was rigged with plastic explosive, and Zohair dragged the plain’s captain into the isles and executed him as an example to the passengers.

With the murder of one hostage confirmed, Germany concluded that the terrorists were beyond negotiations and sent in the counter terrorism police force first established following the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes and additional German police at the Olympics in Munich at the hands of Palestinian gunmen, the GSG 9. The plain was stormed and the hostages rescued.

Three of the four gunmen were killed during the operation, including Zohair and two Lebanese terrorists. The surviving hijacker, a Israeli woman of Palestinian ethnicity, would serve four years in prison and now lives with her husband in Oslo.

Scheyler was killed shortly after. The RAF and PFLP counted their loses and RAF leaders began committing suicide.


*(No, the Red Faction Army is not related to the more recent video game, “Red Faction,” although the protagonists of that video game are terrorists. Seriously, they are, but it’s a fun game anyway.)


EDIT:

How do you feel these events could’ve been handled better? For example, should Germany have begun meeting demands before the situation was exacerbated by the hijacking? Should Germany have jumped into action more rapidly rather than wasting time negotiating with terrorists after the plane was hijacked? After all, they spent so much time bargaining that by the time they showed up some of the hostages had been killed and injured.


What lessons does this historical even hold for us now? Why do you think, having a history of trouble with terrorism itself, Germany still considers the “War on Terror,” America’s problem?

If you’re pro-Palestinian you support or at least defend Hamas firing missiles at Israeli school children. Do you also defend this? I mean, the Israeli civilians have nothing more to do with the conflict than the German civilians. Wouldn’t it be prejudice to say it’s understandable for the Palestinian terrorists to target Israeli innocents but not German innocents, both of which are equally unrelated to the issue?

Isn’t liberal-terrorist supposed to be an oxy-moron? This historical event was pretty recent and seems to show that not only conservatives and Muslims can be terrorists and murderers. The left has its radicals, its extremists as well.

There's a lot to talk about.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/09
What exactly is the discussion? (sorry if I missed it). I think it's shameful that the Middle East allowed the terrorists to re-fill in their countries and not take police action to rescue the civilians. It seems every group has a violent terrorist cell now, including hard left wingers. Terrorism in all forms (Islamic, Christian, atheistic, political) must be stopped. We can't cater to their "rights" or fear offending others by speaking out against terrorism. What happened at Fort Hood was an unspeakable atrocity, as is what what happened to George Tiller.
Posted 11/10/09

digs wrote:

What exactly is the discussion? (sorry if I missed it). I think it's shameful that the Middle East allowed the terrorists to re-fill in their countries and not take police action to rescue the civilians. It seems every group has a violent terrorist cell now, including hard left wingers. Terrorism in all forms (Islamic, Christian, atheistic, political) must be stopped. We can't cater to their "rights" or fear offending others by speaking out against terrorism. What happened at Fort Hood was an unspeakable atrocity, as is what what happened to George Tiller.

I agree with digs here, that besides the historical recounting of the Red Faction Army, this discussion lacks a clear objective nor a direction.

Which brings to the revelation that while history itself is neutral, a collection of real causes and effects with a time stamp. It's still up to each and everyone of us to make judgments of these past events. Otherwise we'll learn nothing from our past, and quite possibly we'll ended up repeating our history because of it.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:

What exactly is the discussion? (sorry if I missed it). I think it's shameful that the Middle East allowed the terrorists to re-fill in their countries and not take police action to rescue the civilians. It seems every group has a violent terrorist cell now, including hard left wingers. Terrorism in all forms (Islamic, Christian, atheistic, political) must be stopped. We can't cater to their "rights" or fear offending others by speaking out against terrorism. What happened at Fort Hood was an unspeakable atrocity, as is what what happened to George Tiller.

I agree with digs here, that besides the historical recounting of the Red Faction Army, this discussion lacks a clear objective nor a direction.

Which brings to the revelation that while history itself is neutral, a collection of real causes and effects with a time stamp. It's still up to each and everyone of us to make judgments of these past events. Otherwise we'll learn nothing from our past, and quite possibly we'll ended up repeating our history because of it.


Precisely my point. Germany was defenseless for the Munich Massacre, and then they were poorly prepared for the hijacking. It took them days to free the hostages and by then not everyone could be taken alive. They spent so much time negotiating instead of acting that the passengers were abused and murdered by the time they arrived. Now everyone says that the "War on Terror," is "America's War," but terrorism effects us all.
Posted 11/10/09

SeraphAlford wrote:




EDIT:

How do you feel these events could’ve been handled better? For example, should Germany have begun meeting demands before the situation was exacerbated by the hijacking? Should Germany have jumped into action more rapidly rather than wasting time negotiating with terrorists after the plane was hijacked? After all, they spent so much time bargaining that by the time they showed up some of the hostages had been killed and injured.


What lessons does this historical even hold for us now? Why do you think, having a history of trouble with terrorism itself, Germany still considers the “War on Terror,” America’s problem?

If you’re pro-Palestinian you support or at least defend Hamas firing missiles at Israeli school children. Do you also defend this? I mean, the Israeli civilians have nothing more to do with the conflict than the German civilians. Wouldn’t it be prejudice to say it’s understandable for the Palestinian terrorists to target Israeli innocents but not German innocents, both of which are equally unrelated to the issue?

Isn’t liberal-terrorist supposed to be an oxy-moron? This historical event was pretty recent and seems to show that not only conservatives and Muslims can be terrorists and murderers. The left has its radicals, its extremists as well.

There's a lot to talk about.

The Germans back then were ill prepared for terrorists situations like those because they weren't aware of the fact that terrorist factions are real international problems. It was only after the Munich incident that Germany form their own specialized anti-terrorists unit. And it was only when terrorist factions created an international incident that involved kidnapping of German official and civilians, that the Germans extended their anti-terrorism activity internationally.

I think this is classic isolationism at work. And even now Germany is conducting a form of isolationism on international terrorism by claiming the "War on Terror" an Americans' problem.

I also think that while the Germans obviously conduct themselves internationally with a nationalistic objective, the terrorist factions OTOH have no such self-restrain. In fact, they have no distinction on any personal boundary such as nationality or individuality. As long as it serves their objectives, anything that they do is just a prelude to that final objective.

Therefore terrorist factions are extremists all the same, while the only distinction is their supporters and benefactors are pro-conservative or pro-liberal.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09
It sounds like Germany did a good job of dealing with this. If you want to protect the hostages, I think you do need to try negotiating first and if it's clear that won't work to protect the hostages, then force should be used. But it's still different for every situation. But if you just go in and end the situation by force every time and ignore why the terrorism is happening, there probably will be more terrorist situations in the future.

I don't understand why they targeted German leaders if they were trying to get prisoners in Turkey free.


If you’re pro-Palestinian you support or at least defend Hamas firing missiles at Israeli school children.

What's "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" supposed to mean, and how did you even come to that conclusion?


Isn’t liberal-terrorist supposed to be an oxy-moron?

It is? I've never heard of that, I think anyone can be a terrorist.



What lessons does this historical even hold for us now? Why do you think, having a history of trouble with terrorism itself, Germany still considers the “War on Terror,” America’s problem?


Well it depends on what you mean by the "War on Terror." I think it's really ironic for the US to be the one coining that phrase, seeing how it's a leading terrorist state. A good way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it, and supporting it. By "War on Terror," do they mean terrorism from Islamic groups only?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:

It sounds like Germany did a good job of dealing with this. If you want to protect the hostages, I think you do need to try negotiating first and if it's clear that won't work to protect the hostages, then force should be used. But it's still different for every situation. But if you just go in and end the situation by force every time and ignore why the terrorism is happening, there probably will be more terrorist situations in the future.

I don't understand why they targeted German leaders if they were trying to get prisoners in Turkey free.




I think that Germany handled the Hijacking pretty well. They were open to negotiations and kept things peaceful on their part. However, the hijacking only occurred because Germany refused to negotiate prior to that point and the RAF wanted to put extra pressure on them. So, they worked they worked with Palestinians. Only then did Germany proceed to take steps towards meeting the demands. My point is that, if they were willing to make the demands, they should’ve done it before the hijacking. The hostages on the plain were mostly saved, but Scheyler was killed when Germany failed to make the releases.

I don’t know why they went after Germany either…





What's "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" supposed to mean, and how did you even come to that conclusion?


The pro-Israelis are the ones who support everything Israel does. So, for example, they’re completely okay with Israel blowing up Gaza’s only power plant following the abduction of Gilad. The pro-Palestinians, meanwhile, will defend Hamas for blindly firing rockets into the Israeli city of Sderot, usually during morning hours in which children are walking to school.

The pro-Israelis think that whenever Israel sacrifices innocent Palestinians it’s an understandable and acceptable response to terrorism. The pro-Palestinians believe the same thing in the reverse order. Or perhaps it would be better to say “Pro-Israel,” and “Pro-PLO/Hamas,” yes. That’s what I mean. Being pro-Palestinian might just mean supporting the rights of Palestinians.






It is? I've never heard of that, I think anyone can be a terrorist.


I’m sure anyone can, but would you call them legitimate liberals if they were really about forcing their values on other people? I’d call that hyper conservative. That’s certainly a behavior I’d credit to stereotypical conservatives.



Well it depends on what you mean by the "War on Terror." I think it's really ironic for the US to be the one coining that phrase, seeing how it's a leading terrorist state.


We’re hardly terrorists. Canada’s more terroristic than we are. You should seriously read “Shake Down” and see how your nation uses fear of financial detriment and ruin to forcibly silence anyone who disagrees with the state. Besides, Canada has followed the United States and supported and funded the United States for the entire latter half of the last century and beyond.



A good way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it, and supporting it. By "War on Terror," do they mean terrorism from Islamic groups only?



You really love your Chomsky quotes, don’t you?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

I’m sure anyone can, but would you call them legitimate liberals if they were really about forcing their values on other people? I’d call that hyper conservative. That’s certainly a behavior I’d credit to stereotypical conservatives.


They probably don't see it as forcing their values on other people, but fighting for their own values. It's like if liberals in the US used terrorism to fight for civil rights.





We’re hardly terrorists. Canada’s more terroristic than we are. You should seriously read “Shake Down” and see how your nation uses fear of financial detriment and ruin to forcibly silence anyone who disagrees with the state. Besides, Canada has followed the United States and supported and funded the United States for the entire latter half of the last century and beyond.


You really love your Chomsky quotes, don’t you?


I don't think we're only supposed to consider what a country does to it's own citizens when deciding if it's a terrorist state or not. US foreign affairs since WW2 and today clearly make it a terrorist state. I'm sure Canada has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, or other foreign affairs in the past, but it's nothing compared to the US.

There isn't any other way to put it than how Chomsky puts it, it's pretty straight forward.
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

I’m sure anyone can, but would you call them legitimate liberals if they were really about forcing their values on other people? I’d call that hyper conservative. That’s certainly a behavior I’d credit to stereotypical conservatives.


I don't think they see it as forcing their values on other people, but fighting for their own values. It's like if liberals in the US used terrorism to fight for civil rights.





We’re hardly terrorists. Canada’s more terroristic than we are. You should seriously read “Shake Down” and see how your nation uses fear of financial detriment and ruin to forcibly silence anyone who disagrees with the state. Besides, Canada has followed the United States and supported and funded the United States for the entire latter half of the last century and beyond.


You really love your Chomsky quotes, don’t you?


I don't think we're only supposed to consider what a country does to it's own citizens when deciding if it's a terrorist state or not. US foreign affairs since WW2 and today clearly make it a terrorist state. I'm sure Canada has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, or other foreign affairs in the past, but it's nothing compared to the US.

I don't think there's any other way to put it than how Chomsky puts it, it's pretty straight forward.

What's clearly so straight forward, yet you obviously missed the point, is exactly how while terrorists are extremists, not all forms of terrorism are performed by the so called "terrorists" according to you. When terrorism is itself a slippery slope, in a sense that it's either an act of terrorism or not. Whereas the scope of terrorist activities notwithstanding, both Canada and the US are hereby condemn as being terrorists as soon as you think their acts are a form of international terrorism.

Or would you rather have Chomsky to be your spokesperson once again?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:

What's clearly so straight forward, yet you obviously missed the point, is exactly how while terrorists are extremists, not all forms of terrorism are performed by the so called "terrorists" according to you.


This sentence makes no sense so I didn't get the point. Not all forms of terrorism is performed by the so called "terrorists?" Okay, if you mean the stereotypical Muslim extremists we always see on the news, yes, obviously they're not the only terrorists.



When terrorism is itself a slippery slope, in a sense that it's either an act of terrorism or not. Whereas the scope of terrorist activities notwithstanding, both Canada and the US are hereby condemn as being terrorists as soon as you agree think their acts are a form of international terrorism.


Umm, again there's some serious grammatical errors so the point isn't very clear. What terrorism is has already been well-defined, so it's not very hard to figure out what countries commit terrorism.
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What's clearly so straight forward, yet you obviously missed the point, is exactly how while terrorists are extremists, not all forms of terrorism are performed by the so called "terrorists" according to you.


This sentence makes no sense so I didn't get the point. Not all forms of terrorism is performed by the so called "terrorists?" Okay, if you mean the stereotypical Muslim extremists we always see on the news, yes, obviously they're not the only terrorists.



When terrorism is itself a slippery slope, in a sense that it's either an act of terrorism or not. Whereas the scope of terrorist activities notwithstanding, both Canada and the US are hereby condemn as being terrorists as soon as you agree think their acts are a form of international terrorism.


Umm, again there's some serious grammatical errors so the point isn't very clear. What terrorism is has already been well-defined, so it's not very hard to figure out what countries commit terrorism.

This is what triggered my respond:

Yei wrote:
I don't think we're only supposed to consider what a country does to it's own citizens when deciding if it's a terrorist state or not. US foreign affairs since WW2 and today clearly make it a terrorist state. I'm sure Canada has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, or other foreign affairs in the past, but it's nothing compared to the US.

I don't think there's any other way to put it than how Chomsky puts it, it's pretty straight forward.
Therefore just who is it that's not making any sense? Is it me, you, or Chomsky?

And when you claimed that both Canada and the US had committed acts of terrorism in Afghanistan, just who's national or individual boundaries that both nations ended up violated? Thus constitute their foreign affairs as acts of international terrorism. Just how exactly extreme are Canada and the US? That you would consider them both "terrorist states".
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:

This is what triggered my respond:

Yei wrote:
I don't think we're only supposed to consider what a country does to it's own citizens when deciding if it's a terrorist state or not. US foreign affairs since WW2 and today clearly make it a terrorist state. I'm sure Canada has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, or other foreign affairs in the past, but it's nothing compared to the US.

I don't think there's any other way to put it than how Chomsky puts it, it's pretty straight forward.
Therefore just who is it that's not making any sense? Is it me, you, or Chomsky?

And when you claimed that both Canada and the US had committed acts of terrorism in Afghanistan, just who's national or individual boundaries that both nations ended up violated? Thus constitute their foreign affairs as acts of international terrorism. Just how exactly extreme are Canada and the US? That you would consider them both "terrorist states".


Chomsky has nothing to do with this, I just put in one of his famous quotes at the end of my first post.

First of all, what definition of terrorism are you using? George Bush's version? I use the English language version, in a political context, and I don't see how you could use it properly any other way. If you do, you need at least make it clear, for example, say "Muslim terrorism," or "only terrorism that happens to us."

Afghanistan isn't a very good example, there's alot of better ones. But yes, obviously Canada and the US both have committed terrorism there.


just who's national or individual boundaries that both nations ended up violated


All the people they've killed in Afghanistan, the people they've scared, the people they've inflicted any form of terror on.



Just how exactly extreme are Canada and the US?


Canada isn't very extreme, it doesn't have the power or influence. The US is ridiculously extreme, just look at all the foreign affairs after WW2, not just the wars.
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

This is what triggered my respond:

Yei wrote:
I don't think we're only supposed to consider what a country does to it's own citizens when deciding if it's a terrorist state or not. US foreign affairs since WW2 and today clearly make it a terrorist state. I'm sure Canada has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, or other foreign affairs in the past, but it's nothing compared to the US.

I don't think there's any other way to put it than how Chomsky puts it, it's pretty straight forward.
Therefore just who is it that's not making any sense? Is it me, you, or Chomsky?

And when you claimed that both Canada and the US had committed acts of terrorism in Afghanistan, just who's national or individual boundaries that both nations ended up violated? Thus constitute their foreign affairs as acts of international terrorism. Just how exactly extreme are Canada and the US? That you would consider them both "terrorist states".


Chomsky has nothing to do with this, I just put in one of his famous quotes at the end of my first posts.

First of all, what definition of terrorism are you using? George Bush's version? I use the English language, political version, and I don't see how you could use it properly any other way. If you do, you need at least make it clear, for example, say "Muslim terrorism," or "only terrorism that happens to us."

Afghanistan isn't a very good example, there's alot of better ones. But yes, obviously Canada and the US both have committed terrorism there.


just who's national or individual boundaries that both nations ended up violated


All the people they've killed in Afghanistan, the people they've scared, the people they've inflicted any form of terror on.



Just how exactly extreme are Canada and the US?


Canada isn't very extreme, it doesn't have the power or influence. The US is ridiculously extreme, just look at all the foreign affairs after WW2, not just the wars.

Nope. Not clear. And not even close to an argument.

The fundamental logic in the study of international history is to establish a history of pattern, using real international causes and effects with time stamps. What you said where all over-generalizations with no real clear and defined patterns, when you lack real factual proofs.

For example, I would say both Canada and the US are not terrorist states after WWII, because they're not the ones responsible of raising the "Iron Curtain" in 1945.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:
Nope. Not clear. And not even close to an argument.

The fundamental logic in the study of international history is to establish a history of pattern, using real international causes and effects with time stamps. What you said where all over-generalizations with no real clear and defined patterns, when you lack real factual proofs.

For example, I would say both Canada and the US are not terrorist states after WWII, because they're not the ones responsible of raising the "Iron Curtain" in 1945.


Seriously, what are you talking about? Half the time it seems like you're just trying to sound smart but it just ends up being meaningless.

What is terrorism? Define it, and then we can actually get somewhere.
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Nope. Not clear. And not even close to an argument.

The fundamental logic in the study of international history is to establish a history of pattern, using real international causes and effects with time stamps. What you said where all over-generalizations with no real clear and defined patterns, when you lack real factual proofs.

For example, I would say both Canada and the US are not terrorist states after WWII, because they're not the ones responsible of raising the "Iron Curtain" in 1945.


Seriously, what are you talking about? Half the time it seems like you're just trying to sound smart but it just ends up being meaningless.

What is terrorism? Define it, and then we can actually get somewhere.

You mean all this time, you yourself don't even know? Whereas I OTOH already had a clear idea just what terrorism is.

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.