TERRORISTS ARE NOTHING BUT COMMON CRIMINALS

I am very annoyed with the idea that terrorists are anything more than common criminals. Within any given nation ruled by law, terrorists are simply criminals. Frequently, they are the lowest and most extreme form of criminal: The mass-murderer.

So far as I know, there is no code of law in existence, in any nation, which excuses a mass-murderer as "innocent by reason of oppression". There are many oppressed people all over the world, of every race, religion and culture. The fact that someone has oppressed them, or is oppressing them, has never been grounds for the "oppressed" going out and murdering anybody who they feel has "oppressed" them.

Part of the reason for this, of course, is the impossibility of enforcement. Countries run under the rule of law do not have any instance where murder is a non-criminal act (except possibly for immediate self-defense or certain cases of insanity).

There are many other practical and logical difficulties with so-called "terrorism". They fall under 3 general categories: Who, what and why.

1. WHO: Assuming that a "terrorist organization" performs some mass-murder, how do you even know that a particular terrorist organization is REALLY responsible for it? Even if they allegedly take responsibility for it?

Let's say that Osama Bin Laden takes credit for blowing up the World Trade Center. How do we know that he is really responsible for it? He will not appear in person. He will not provide evidence that clearly shows that he did it.

We are dependent upon videotapes which could have been forged. Our only true evidence comes from airline videos and other intelligence showing that certain Saudis, allegedly members of something called "Al Qaeda", committed this egregious act of mass-murder and devastation.

The first serious falacy of terrorism is the impossibility of accountability. Nobody is truly ACCOUNTABLE for any terrorist act. The only cases where someone is accountable is when they blow themselves up or they get caught. The Saudis who flew the planes on 9/11 are all dead, so they are not accountable. If so-called "terrorists" blow themselves up, they are totally non-accountable, since you can't interrogate them to find out why they did it.

If they get caught, they are still un-accountable since they may lie in order to avoid prison. They might claim to be "oppressed terrorists" but may actually be simple extortionists, gangsters, or outright psychopaths.

Some Arab terrorist-sympathizers like to justify "terrorist" mass-murderers by saying that Israel is a "terrorist" nation, and that using terror against them is justifiable. However, Israel does not fit into this definition of terrorism. The Government of Israel is accountable for any act of physical force by the Israeli army. It is also subject to clearly identified and enforced law, including international law.

Terrorists are criminals who have no regard for law unless the particular law suits their interests.

2. WHY: When a terrorist organization, or an individual terrorist commits a particular act of mass-murder, it is impossible to definitively even know WHY they have committed this crime.

In the case of Palestinian suicide bombers, for example, you can not determine exactly why they have committed the crime, since you can not talk to them. Sure, they write some document about how they are blowing themselves up to protest Israel, etc. But upon more careful investigation, you discover that Sadam Hussein or an oil-cartel-financed Jihadist organization has given the suicide-bomber's family $25,000 to get the person to blow himself up.

This is not an act of idealism. It is an act of a young person in a hopelessly overpopulated state sacrificing his pathetic life to provide wealth for his impoverished family. The REAL reason behind it may have had more to do with the ambitions and vengefulness of Sadam Hussein, or of the strategy of the oil cartel or trans-arabic, empire-building, Jihadist Islam.

There is, in fact, no guarantee that Palestinian suicide-bombers represent the majority of the Palestinians. They most certainly do not represent the one million Palestinians who have become Israeli citizens.

Considering the near civil war conditions in Gaza, it is clear that terrorist organizations do not have a clear mandate even from the people of Gaza.

Hitler himself used this feature of "terrorism" to his advantage. The Nazis blew up the German parliament to further Hitler's ambitions as supreme dictator. Then they blamed it on communist "terrorists".

In the case of 9/11, the terrorist-sympathizers like to invent reasons as they go along. The Saudi leadership, who gave birth to 15 of the 19 sub-humans who perpetrated this massive crime, like to blather on about how it is all the fault of those nasty Israelis who mistreat the poor, innocent, mass-murdering Palestinians.

But to me it is highly unlikely that the 15 Saudi bombers would really have sacrificed their lives just to make some lame and unclear protest about "Israeli oppression". After all, Saudi Arabia is about 1000 miles from Israel, and Israel has virtually no influence upon Saudi Arabia, so why should Saudi suicide-bombers really gave a hoot about Israel?

Additionally, if 9/11 was about Israel, then why didn't the 9/11 suicide-bombers simply fly a plane into a building in Israel? Perhaps because these suicide-bombers were a bunch of psychopathic asswipes who would only be happy if they produced HUGE devastation, and Israel does not have any buildings any where near the scale of the World Trade Center.

Additionally, I simply do not think that the Arabs really give that much of a sh_t about Israel/Palestine. Let's face it: If the Saudi multi-billionaires loved their Palestinian "brethren" so much, they would have welcomed them into the Saudi Kingdom long ago, and they would have lavished some of their untold billions upon these poor unfortunate creatures.

But the fact is, the LAST thing that Saudi multi-billionaires want in Saudi Arabia are a bunch of dirt-poor, suicide-bombing radicals. Because guess what? The Palestinians could turn on the Saudi Royal Family with lightning rapidity. It is very convenient for the Saudis to have Israel around, so that they can blame the Jews for all the problems that they themselves cause. Apparently they are taking a page from the Nazi handbook.

3. WHAT: This is essentially the question of what country or electorate a terrorist represents. Nation-based terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah or the PLO, claim to have the support of their nation, even though they are incapable of forming a government.

In reality, this is generally based upon terror rather than popularity. Hezbollah exerts a hundred times more terrorism upon the Lebanese then it does upon Israel. People within Lebanon do not have the weaponry and organization to resist the extortion and terrorism that Hezbollah inflicts upon the Lebanese citizenry (especially Christians).

If Hezbollah were truly representative of Lebanon, they would be something called a "government". But they are not, because their power is based on extortion and gangsterism.

Hezbollah is also lavishly funded by Iran, which criminally supplied Hezbollah with 13,000 missiles to fire at Israeli civilian targets.

So we constantly see terrorist groups trying to perpetuate the big lie that they "represent" a population group, like the Palestinians, or like the Lebanese, when in fact they do not. When, in fact, they have used terrorism and extortion to quiet any sort of opposition to their brutal, gangster regimes. Indeed, they may take money and arms from a foreign country and use it against the legitimate government of their own country.

This is certainly the case in Lebanon, where the Lebanese army is less powerful, and has less money, than the Iran-funded Hezbollah. And since Hezbollah is representing the interests of IRAN rather than LEBANON, Hezbollah are actually TRAITORS to the people that they alledgedly represent.

So you can see from the above that terrorists are not "terrorists". They are simply common criminals.

Draft 2: 4/5/07