Last night on Lateline Tony Jones interviewed Pakistani Minister for Religious Affairs Muhammad Ijaz ul Haq. Jones used phrases and words such as "terrorist plots," "terrorist events," and "terrorists" quite freely.

He notably avoided the use of "militant."

So who is a "terrorist" and who is a "militant?"

Analysing ABC commentary the following pattern emerges:

Terrorists kill Australians and Brits.

Everybody else gets killed by militants.

See:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1989528.htm

The dictionary definition of a militant is one who is prepared to take up arms for a cause.
I guess that could be seen as a generic term covering both freedom fighters, as seen in France and elsewhere during the war, and also terrorists.

Terrorists are quite different. They are prepared to kill their own with the same indifference they kill their perceived enemy. In fact, to instil fear and compliance among
their own people they will resort to this type of action.

The following site is a typical example of terrorism, where those opposing or challenging a specific group are tortured and killed.

http://www.shoebat.com/palestinian_justice.php

it's quite simple, really: i'm a pacifist, you're a militant, he's a terrorist.

when i was young, it was easy. we were the good guys. the other guys were terrorists, although we used other words: red devils, greasers, gooks. during the course of the vietnam war my viewpoint changed. it was pretty clear the usa was engaged in war crimes, and once i grasped that was possible, all of american history took on a sinister meaning.

it's still pretty easy. but you do have to ask questions: whose army is on whose land? is the united nations involved? who is profiting from the conflict?

.

It's quite simple really ,
a terrorist is a militant who do not have a particular target, but simply seek to create fear through indiscriminate " direct action " they lack any specified object to the " action " but only the effect on mental framework it will produce,
it's like advertisers , but with bombs !

In classic marxist-leninist theory they are defined as the tools of repression , the cause and motive to pass ever more repressive measure in a law abiding society ,
the G.W.Bush / Al Quaeda tango is a case in point , both using and " cooperating " with each other to create a propaganda campaign

sincere terrorists seek to aggravate a society instability by pushing it to the edge of indifference and into blind reaction
this is the theory of the worst ,
to strip any illusions about what kind of beast an organised society is

basically dangerous masturbatory intellectuals

.

Hey Randwick..colorful imagery there :)

Militant...Terrorist.. or....."ENEMY"

We need to change our categorization of people opposed to our way of life.

Its not hard.. they are either 'friends/allies' or... 'enemies'

Some enemies will be only at the ideological level, others at the violent level, others still at both. But they are all enemies.

I see no reason to make any distinction between them.

Terrorists are individuals who use terrorism as a tool for their agenda. They use direct terror on the population. They don't prefer to attack and direct their energy at the proposed enemy. A militant is a soldier for a cause. Usually the cause is against a dictatorship within their country. A militant may have a justifiable case for their cause, but don't use terror on the population as a tool. They are generally fighting FOR the people. Not personal agendas.

Having witnessed communist terrorism in Malaya, these terrorists would commonly ambush and machine-gun a bus full of innocent citizens, or throw hand-grenades into packed cinemas - all their own people. This was the way to exert their power and terrorise ordinary people to comply with their wishes. Their wishes could extend from harbouring them, to financing them, to feeding them, to clothing them, to giving out government information - anything they needed or wished to achieve. Anyone who confronted or challenged them was immediately killed - even members of their family.

They had absolutely no conscience about their actions, which they saw as replacing the evils of democracy and capitalism, with a communist utopia.

This is my experiece of what terrorism means.

Danielle,

That pretty much coincides with what I observed in what was then called Rhodesia and is today Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe's ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union) thugs killed anyone who got in their way.

Come to think of it, what has changed?

Of course, in fairness, the White Government of Ian Smith were no saints themselves.

Steven.....this is the point where you start to 'wonder' about me :)

I happen to find it no less 'barbaric' for Mugabe to do what he is doing, (and in the process reversing one of the great crimes against humanity, perpetrated by white colonialists) than what the Whites did to the Blacks a bit earlier.

Can you see any difference ? This should be good.

I wonder how you might have felt if you were one of the 90% of black driven off their land when the whites came ? Hmmmmm just possibly like the Whites are NOW feeling as the blacks take their land BACK.

Was the white takover more 'compassionate' more humane ? more sympathetic to the crying children ?

Your comment shows a lot about 'racial/centrism' :)... "Its ok to destroy lives and take land as long as its US who is doing it.. but then those we did it to do it back to us.. oooh..shock horror..its barbaric thugs, militants and terrorists ...

I have no ethnic sympathy for the descendants of the whites who directly took over, OR for those who then came along and BOUGHT the stolen land. Its just how life is.. you take.. you lose.. etc. its about enemies and friends.

Fortunately the Kingdom of God and its values are not like that.

Human history is the history of giving and taking.. mostly taking other peoples stuff/land.

Danielle... sounds like you have an interesting life, I'd love to know more about your Malayan experience.. I had similar but not with Communists.
newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au

Gee Boaz, it's a good job there are less than half a million aborigines left, isn't it?

>>I happen to find it no less 'barbaric' for Mugabe to do what he is doing, (and in the process reversing one of the great crimes against humanity, perpetrated by white colonialists) than what the Whites did to the Blacks a bit earlier<<

So tell me, does this indicate that you would be in favour of an armed uprising of our native Australians, and actively support any violent attempt on their part to reverse "one of the great crimes against humanity, perpetrated by white colonialists."

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but that sounds a very odd stance for a Christian to take. Publicly, at least.

>>I have no ethnic sympathy for the descendants of the whites who directly took over, OR for those who then came along and BOUGHT the stolen land<<

That is subtle - what exactly do you mean by "ethnic sympathy"?

Can this be the same Boaz who advocates "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" as the mantra for Australian values? Errr, sorry, I meant "One Nation, One Culture, One Race".

Pericles.....

I am making observations of history. Can you honestly make a qualitative differentiation between Mugabe now and the Brits 'then'?
Please don't give me the "But but..'we' civilized them" argument.

In response to your point about "Thank goodness there are only a few aboriginals left" .."Historically" speaking.. yes, you bet ur white rear end there are not many left. Because the influences being brought to bear on the "angry young men" among the Indigenous community is seeking to persuade them that they have legitimate grievances and that they can solve them through violence and rebellion.
"Historically" that last sentense is "correct but futile" they DO have legitimate grievances, but they don't have the wherewithall to do much about it.... but.. if the figures were like 55% Whites and 45% indigenous.. with the same grievances.. only a fool would think they would not be tempted to try some 'redress'.

Its not that I 'support' such a thing, but I would understand it. Just like I would understand the reaction from the white community.
When it comes to such things, my personal view is.. as I oultined in 'ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE'.. which you seem to feel is borderline Fascism. It worked for England.. (with the partial exception of Scotland and Wales) where the Anglo Saxons took over, but also intermarried, now.. they are all 'Brits'.

How many Brits(even you) induldge in ethnic history naval gazing to try to work out who to hate ? Hence.. in answering 'very few if any' you are also acknowledging that the solution is as I suggest.. "ONE"ness.....

stevenlmeyer,

I have never liked colonialism, even in Malaya, which was a British colony. But for the communist insurgency, Malaya would have become an independent sovereign state much earlier. In 1948 the last territory, the island of Labuan, joined the rest of Malay states to become the Federation of Malaya.  Singapore remained a separate colony. Sir Gerald Templar, Commander-in-Chief of the British and Commonwealth forces desired an independent Malaya, free of colonial rule. However, the mainly ethnic communist Chinese who had fought against the Japanese during WWII, resented the new federation. This resulted in the Malay Emergency. Whilst the Federation of Malaya gained sovereign independence in 1957, the Malay Emergency was not declared officially over until 1960.

Whilst local peoples suffered dreadfully under communist terrorism (which was intended
to instil fear and compliance), Europeans were the main targets, and we lost many good friends at that time. But, after all, we Europeans were controlling an Asian country. I understood communist attitudes towards Europeans better than I could accept what they were doing to their own people. This is what I saw as terrorism.

British Colonial Officers, serving in Malaya at the time independence was granted, were released from their duties by Whitehall. However, the Malay government immediately offered them contracts to serve in the same capacity as they had under Britain. There wasn't even a hiccup when the changeover took place. Administration at all levels remained the same. No changes were implemented until much, much later, possibly as late as the 1970's.

Boaz, the arguments are interesting but the conclusions are suspect.

If I were to subscribe to your "all colonialists are bastards" philosophy, then of course the systematic annihilation of his own people by Mugabe in short order is completely analogous to the establishment of various trading outposts of the British Empire over a period of a few hundred years.

Ah, those were the days, we were all at it like rabbits, us Europeans. Brits, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Germans, even the Belgians - remember the Congo? - what memories.

I seem to recall that your lot were doing their thing too, bringing various versions of Christianity to the heathen continents. Creating conflict, wiping out age-old customs. Breaking up families too, I recall, all in the Name of the Lord. Cute.

It's important not to get too self-righteous about all this Boaz, isn't it?

And it is about time you faced up to the reality of the monster you want to create, 'One Nation, One Culture, One Race'. It is not "borderline fascism", Boaz, but straight-out, one hundred percent, warm-my-jackboots-mother fascism.

>>It worked for England.. (with the partial exception of Scotland and Wales) where the Anglo Saxons took over, but also intermarried, now.. they are all 'Brits'<<

There you go, the wrong end of the stick again. In your quest to bring everyone into a single cultural mould (yours), you completely misread the evidence. Homogenization is a bad thing, not a good thing; it can only lead to mediocrity.

Check out Rio Ferdinand (soccer player) born in Peckham of West Indian and Irish ancestry. Or Monty Panesar, a Sikh cricketer born in Luton. Or Saj Mahmood, a Bolton-born Muslim fast bowler who has played for England. There are many others who speak Cockney, Yorkshire or Geordie, but have their cultural roots intact.

It is respecting difference, as opposed to eliminating difference, that has been the driving force behind turning these - and many, many others - into what you call "Brits".

Pericles... I don't see my vision of Australia as Fascism at all... the simple reason is.. I don't see it ever happening in any forced way.. if it had to be forced then it would not be valid.. what I do say though, is that the government should 'faciliate' by structuring programs and policy such that people do not feel they are crossing some huge cultural gulf in order to marry out of their cultural or ethnic comfort zone.

Fascism is about concentrating power in the hands of an elite.. how do you get that from my views ?

This video makes a good commentary on 'militants' who are not yet 'terrorists' but I think they are proving one thing.. they will take the fullest advantage of the freedom they have, to destroy that very freedom for us. Do you concur ? do you see any reason to be concerned about this abuse of freedom ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO74GwUTZj4

I sure do. Highlighting this abuse, is just that. These are the radicals who are calling out to the moderate Muslims passing by, seeking to radicalize them also.
How would you feel P if this was the Union Jack or the Aussie flag ?
I'd be quite upset to be truthful.

So what's all this got to do with millitant and terrorists?

Well of course you don't Boaz, or you wouldn't keep doing it.

>>I don't see my vision of Australia as Fascism at all...<<

I have always given you the benefit of the doubt, and still do. You are totally unaware of the image that you present, and of the potential harm your rabble-rousing can create.

>>the simple reason is.. I don't see it ever happening in any forced way.. if it had to be forced then it would not be valid<<

Ay, there's the rub.

The society you envisage, One This, One That and One the Other, will never emerge spontaneously. History, if it has taught us anything at all, has been absolutely one hundred percent consistent on this.

Pick any country that has been created by politicians drawing lines in the earth, and examine it carefully. Iraq, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Turkey, South Africa... the list is very very long indeed - and look at the internal tensions that are exaggerated by the presence of those lines.

Kurds in Turkey. Bosnians, Serbs, Montenegrans etc. in the old Tito-land. War between Iraq and Kuwait over an artificial boundary between them, created by the French and British at the end of WWI. There are twentysix major tribal groupings in Africa (and multitudinous minor ones), none of which map neatly into the countries that have been drawn on the map.

The only way you - or anyone - will be able to impose "one anything" on the Australian people is by the exertion of downward force. The kind of laws that are needed to bring it about can only be mandated; no-one in their right mind would vote for them, simply because they would confer too much power on the executive.

So please bear in mind that when the only tool available is a hammer, you need to be very careful whom you allow to pick it up and wield it. It is no use saying afterwards "I only gave it to him to fix the gutter", after he has left a trail of destruction in his quest to bring your vision into existence.

PERICLES said:

[The only way you - or anyone - will be able to impose "one anything" on the Australian people is by the exertion of downward force.]

Your quite right.. if we were to IMPOSE it... it would have to be by force.

But that is a straw man and a very red herring. I've not suggested anything about 'impose', but I've said a fair bit about policy which supports a breaking down of racial and cultural barriers..how hard is that to understand ?

How hard is it to highlight successful cross cultural marriages in the media, and in government articles.. to the point where it creates an ambience of acceptability ? I mean.. surely you...even you...can 'get' this ?

While Andrew Bartlett cannot see a problem with "They haven't found out about you yet" and "Your cousin is involved in a 'project' in Scotland" (i.e. Project 'Ka-boom').. you.. could surely see that there is a difference between 'facilitating and creating a positive atmosphere' and 'forcing'....right ?

I sure hope so.

I still don't see in the slightest how this is 'fascism'. So, "yes" I will continue to seek to persuade all races not to hate or hold in suspicion other races and cultures within Australia. (with the notable exception of radical Islamists)

As usual, we will have to agree to disagree Boaz.

>>if we were to IMPOSE it... it would have to be by force. But that is a straw man and a very red herring. I've not suggested anything about 'impose', but I've said a fair bit about policy which supports a breaking down of racial and cultural barriers..how hard is that to understand ?<<

We are on the opposite sides of a logical fault-line. You believe that a "policy which supports a breaking down of racial and cultural barriers" is one where diversity is discouraged, whereas I believe that such a policy would necessarily be tolerant of cultural differences.

Witness the number of times you have banged on about people in Melbourne who still support the Greek or Italian soccer team, instead of being part of the "Ozzy ozzy ozzy" crowd. It is a common theme of yours - "cleave to a single Aussie culture, forget your history, be a real Aussie" - that has culminated in that ridiculous and inflammatory slogan of yours.

Your policy ideas on One-Australianism can be summed up as "homogenization into a single culture is necessary to make it happen". Mine is "tolerance of differences is necessary to make it happen".

The difference between the two is that mine can include yours, but yours cannot include mine. In other words, if tolerance of difference eventually leads to homogenization, that's great. But you cannot get to tolerance of difference via homogenization - they are mutually exclusive.

Hence my conviction that the only way to achieve your goals will be through coercion. People are different - and I'm not even talking about racial, ethnic or religious differences - because they want to be. To suggest that there is a single path to harmony, that you are in possession of the knowledge of that path, and that people should therefore follow your path, can only be achieved through coercion.

History says so, not just me.

Pericles.... ur wrong. Mine CAN and indeed does include yours.

Tolerance is important.

In the 'PROCESS' of homogonization, assimilation, etc.. we can do no less than tolerate those things which the less assimilated find it difficult to leave.
Simple example.. a Japanese man will most likely have difficulty not 'bowing' when he meets a new person here.. What.. do we laugh, condemn, rebuke, rant at him ? Of course not.. we TOLERATE him.. we don't reciprocate the bow..but we let him do what he feels comfortable with and then shake the blighters hand....

I have pointed out very clearly (I thought) that the 'ONE' Australia, Culture and Race which I dream of...will NOT be 'WASP'...I said in my original piece that our skin color might be a bit 'off' white, our noses might be a bit flatter.. our eyes might have a slightly different shape.. as people intermarry, the new ONE-ness emerges.

My vision does not even require a 'single' religion.. its as diverse as we are today. I would draw the line on certain things, as you well know. But no need to repeat that here.

Please actually read what I say next time.

That's just tap-dancing, Boaz, and you know it.

>>I have pointed out very clearly (I thought) that the 'ONE' Australia, Culture and Race which I dream of...will NOT be 'WASP' I said in my original piece that our skin color might be a bit 'off' white, our noses might be a bit flatter.. our eyes might have a slightly different shape.. as people intermarry, the new ONE-ness emerges.<<

But how do you actually start the process? Presumably - and this is from your own posts - there has first to be an agreement on the culture towards which your melting-pot will strive. It has absolutely nothing to do with inter-marriage - this has happened in the past and will continue into the future, until your coffee-coloured people emerge - and everything to do with the purpose behind it.

You cannot claim, at this late stage, that you would be happy for "any" culture to be the end-result of your vision - it is there, front and centre: your definition of Australian culture, together with its handshakes and barbecues and its mateship, has to be the one that is imposed on the rest of us. We cannot barrack for Panathinaikos or Inter Milan, it has to be Collingwood (or possibly Melbourne, in your case?). We cannot prefer spanakopita to footy pies, or pho to a lamb roast.

Tolerant of differences? I don't think so.

Can someone actually define what is Australian culture?

In the 1940's and 1950's everything was pretty much anglo. The food was appalling. It was no coincidence that the only English "chef" to make a note for himself until that time was Sweeney Todd ... and he was executed. I recall when on study leave in the late 80's buying a pie - and I kid you not - not only was the pastry heavy with lard, but I had to lever it off from my palate with a fork. Current English chefs are heavily influenced from elsewhere.

I don't like barbeques which are generally attended by more flies and/or mosquitoes than guests. In fact, I would prefer to undergo root canal work than attend one.

Now for sports. I have no doubt that I am going to insult at least one person on this site, if not all. It is not my intention. I do concede that sport brings great joy to Aussies - and just as often moves them to tears of deep emotion - so serves a purpose. However, the sight of grown men fighting for, and chasing an inflated bladder round a paddock brings me no pleasure at all.

I am a great lover of nature, but this doesn't extend to being packed penguin like with others, (generally intent on displaying the "before body" from a Jenny Craig advert in the skimpiest bathers - Bring on on the Burqa Bathers!) on an extremely hot beach, getting sand in places where sand shouldn't be, burnt, ... and as I sink like a stone ....

cont ...

It seems that Aussies in the art world have to go overseas before acceptance here.
Unfortunately, any form of art in Australia does not get the financial support and recognition here, as the arts do in other countries.

Real culture - indeed any form of intellectual debate - in Australia is rather threadbare. Most of what we have, came from European post-war
immigrants. Perhaps this is why people feel threatened by current new-comers.
Our Australian culture is superficial.

With all the problems in the USA - and none can deny they have them - I have never met an American of whatever racial or national background, who has not been proud to be an American. It is this mix that gives the US its vitality in every field of endeavour. Their parents, or grandparents, may still follow the old ways, and whilst their grandchildren are completey acclimatized to modern US culture, their original culture (and experiences of their grandparents) remains in their background, enriching their contribution to society. Some Afro-American women, whose forebears predate most of current American society, have taken to wearing their traditional costumes - and how magnificent these are.

An observation. We never question the origins of classical music, art, literature, or indeed philosophy; even certain crafts. Those that practice in these fields are knowledgeable not only about our western heritage, but also about that from all parts of the world, often looking to these for new inspiration or ideas. But they never ever deny the value of the original product and process, whatever its origins.

I would not define a militant as a terrorist. A militant goes to war in an orderly fashion. He formally declares war, wears a uniform, observes conventions and attacks the enemy.
A terrorist is a low-life coward who hides his face under a towel or puts a bag on his head. He employs women and children to die in his place and tells them they are martyrs for his cause. He does not have the guts to attack an armed man so he attacks innocent civilians, old and young. He strikes fear in a community but does not declare himself such that the victims can retaliate.

Pericles. I'll answer the question 'how does one get it started'....

Yes..it DOES indeed require a recognition of a prevailing culture. This is self evident.
BUT... to do so, does not mean we must enshrine it any more than it already IS.... the mood, texture, and fabric of our legal and social system is in reality based on ONE basic confluence of history, religion and culture. (British/Irish/Scottish/Northern European. It does not reflect 'one' individual from those cultural tributaries as much as it reflects the commonality of them all.

So... the starting point is already present. We just have to take it the next step. Remember Dorothea Mckellars poem ? "My Country". There is an 'Australian' identity.

TOLERANCE..DIFFERENCES. Please view this video, and see just how EASY it is for 'difference' to result in tragedy. What have I been saying so many times ? "When you emphasise difference, it only takes a small spark to ignite racial/cultural/religious strife".

and here is some evidence to support that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_HTaEvDbk&watch_response

In the vid, you will note that a Christian town was ravaged by Druze Muslims, based on a single false report by a Druze teenager that Druze women had been portrayed pornographically on the internet.

One spark..... and the fire is alight because of....'difference'.

Militants arise from difference.

cheers

a Militant is a terrorist when THIS happens....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTi_Imyacx0&mode=related&search=

But... God has an answer... is it a war? yes.. a spirtual one.

Here is one 'prisoner of war' in that battle... who turned from "JIhadist" to "Christian"

The first comment is this from a former Muslim calling himself "JESUSISLORDAMEN" (with whom I have had personal correspondence-Pakistani background)

JESUSISLORDAMEN

GREAT VIDEO, WE WERE MUSLIM AND WE HAVE COME TO CHRIST ALSO 30 PLUS OF US AND OUR FAMILY, we were and are still being persecuated in a so called "christian" country called BRITIAN. THE POLICE DOSENT DO ANYTHING, ALL THE PROTECTION THE MUSLIMS GET. Yes we live in ENGLAND and the muslims are after us for&#65279; COMING TO CHRIST. BUT TO LIFE IS CHRIST DIE IS GAIN.

GOD BLESS ABOUT TIME WE DO SOMETING TO HELP THE PERSECUATED BODY OF CHRIST

REMEMBER JESUS SAID MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.

..end comment.