1/11/2025

What is terrorism? According to who's definition?

"SINGAPORE: Three men whose radicalisation was triggered or accelerated by the Israel-Hamas conflict were detained under the Internal Security Act in November 2024, the Internal Security Department (ISD) said on Thursday (Jan 9).

All three Singaporeans were separately self-radicalised online and had made preparations to engage in armed violence overseas....

“Emotionally affected by the suffering of the Palestinians, he formed a hatred towards the IDF, and within weeks, developed a strong desire to fight for Hamas against the IDF in Gaza,” said ISD.

“He believed this was a legitimate form of armed jihad and aspired to die as a martyr while fighting.”....

Over the years, he became convinced this would occur in his lifetime, and it was his religious duty to fight alongside the mujahideen, or fighters, against the “enemies of Islam” during this period....

He viewed the IDF and the Israeli government as “enemies” for inflicting suffering on the Palestinians...."


Above is quoted from CNA on the arrest of 3 radicalised Singaporeans under the ISA. Their motivation is to go to the Middle East to fight for the Palestinians. There are many fighters from foreign countries fighting in the Middle East and in Ukraine for the Israelis and the Ukrainians. These are called volunteers or mercenaries, not terrorists.  In the western media, those volunteers or radicalised Muslims are called terrrorists just like their branding of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and all the freedom fighters defending their lands and fighting for the Palestinians as terrorists.

What is the definition of terrorist in the dictionary? Generally, terrorists are those involved in acts of violence not affected by war, not a war zone, but in peaceful cities, and the victims or assets are civilians, like bombings of infrastructure, public places or mowing down civilians in their cars, or the 911 incident. Anyone, radicalised or not, but with intent to blow up infrastructure or people in a city or public places would fall under the definition of terrorists and their acts as terrorism.

In the Middle East, the Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and many other groups of fighters are fighting for the freedom of their countries and people. Are they terrorists? Why are they called terrorists? Do you accept this terrorist label tagged on them by the Americans and the Israelis?

The genocide of the Palestinians, is it an act of war or an act of terrorism, state terrorism? The Americans and the Israelis are conducting indiscriminate bombing of the Arab states with no declaration of war. Are they not terrorists just because they put on military uniforms and have the backing of the states? Are not the mercenaries fighting for Ukraine and Israel terrorists and should be arrested and jailed?

What do you think? What is a terrorist? What is the definition of a terrorist? Are you blindly using the American and western definition of terrorist as the right definition when the Americans, including the Brits, are the world's most vicious terrorists? The USA is the world's number one terrorist state.

PS.  Below is from an article in RT on the crimes committed by Brit terrorists in Afghanistan.

UK special forces had ‘golden pass’ to kill Afghan civilians – officer
British troops viewed all fighting-age men as targets, a former service member said in his testimony.

British commandos had a policy of routinely killing civilians during anti-Taliban raids in Afghanistan, a former soldier has told a public inquiry.

The testimonies of seven soldiers and commanders released on Wednesday are part of an investigation into the conduct of the UK special forces, including the SAS, in Helmand province between 2010 and 2013.

“During these operations it was said that ‘all fighting age males are killed’ on target regardless of the threat they posed, this included those not holding weapons,” a soldier, known only as N1799, told the inquiry.

Deutsche Bank downgrades Lockheed Martin, maker of the sick aircraft F 35 touted as world best

 Shares of US arms firm Lockheed Martin, maker of the fifth-generation fighter jet F-35, was downgraded to Hold from Buy at Deutsche Bank with a price target of $523, down from $611. An analyst at the bank named "China's combat aircraft modernization efforts" as a reason behind the decision, after videos emerged online suspected of showing alleged China's six-generation fighter jet.


"We're downgrading Lockheed to Hold [from Buy] as we feel our prior thesis struggles to hold water and we have increased concern on the long-term support for F-35 in the face of China's combat aircraft modernization efforts," Deutsch Bank analyst Scott Deuschle said.

Deuschle said he sees "the reveal of further advancements in combat aircraft capabilities by China as potentially undermining long-term [Department of Defense] demand for the F-35 aircraft."

Anonymous

China making the Americans pee in their pants

 The USA is in a position it has never been facing before. Never in history has another country caused so much unease, instilled so much fear, anxiety and basically paralyzing the USA and making it desperately insecure.


China is not just any competitor that the USA can just put it thumb down and step upon, like Germany and Japan. China is a peer competitor for the USA in almost every sector of the economic wheel, in every mode of manufacturing, in every development in technology from space exploration, telecommunication innovation, infrastructure development, high speed rail expertise, shipbuilding know-how and is giving the USA a run for its money in semiconductors and aviation as well.

The USA wants to contain China and is formulating all the wrong policies just to make China economically insecure. The trade wars, technology wars, sanctions, and now tariffs are all the means that the USA is using to try to wrestle back control of the global economic power, and which is pivoting to the East and in particular towards China.

In order to contain China, the USA had to rely on the alliance of the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan and India to assist in its endeavor, thereby making these allies pay a heavy price on its behalf. Success is still an elusive dream for the USA, while the price of failure is already evident in Europe and likewise in Japan.

Now there is an energy crisis unfolding in Europe, which is of its own making, and which will help the USA to sell more oil and gas to Europe. The USA is insidiously creating an energy crisis in Europe to back Trump's threat of forcing the EU to buy more oil and gas from the USA. And this is now happening without even needing tariffs to force the Europeans to comply. Zelenskyy is giving a big hand in helping the USA in this direction.

Bringing back manufacturing to the USA is an elusive pipe dream. No way can the USA do that with high wages, lack of raw materials, manpower with poor working attitudes and having a belated start compared to China. China had already monopolized supply chains from the extraction of raw materials to finished products two decades earlier. Sure, raw materials are abundant in many countries like Canada and Australia, but investors have to contend with the threat of China making their investments worthless by turning into white elephants by flooding the market. Thus, the USA is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.

To make the situation even more unpleasant is the policy of Trump threatening to get rid of immigrants by the millions. These are supposed to be replaced by higher wage USA workers that are basically too used to enjoying cheap Chinese products without having to work hard to earn their keeps. Employers are unhappy while Unions are in support of Trump's move. And in tandem with Trump, countries in Europe and Australia are following the USA by going after immigrants.

The Whites are telling the non-Whites to get out of their country. How about the Native American Indians telling the Whites to go back to Europe from where they came from as North America belongs to their ancestors thousands of years ago. Or the Aborigines telling the White Australians to go back to the UK as Australia belongs to their ancestors.

Anonymous

Mexico and Nicaragua are alternatives to compete with Panama Canal

 Two other countries in South America are looking at the possibility of providing alternatives to the Panama Canal. One is Nicaragua and the other is Mexico. There are problems to surmount of course, and the media is already throwing cold water on these two projects now undergoing feasibility studies.


Even the construction of the Panama Canal had been highly problematic, with France giving up midway and USA taking over. 25,000 lives were lost during the construction period which stretched over three decades, imagine 30 long years. That was during a period where highly sophisticated construction equipment was non-existent, with only steam driven machinery available towards the later stages, unlike today. So, such an undertaking today will be very much easier.

They say that necessity is the mother of invention. If the USA takes control of the Panama Canal, countries in the region will give serious thought to having an alternative. If China wants to go in to play the game, knowing what it means with the Panama Canal under USA control, nothing is an impossibility.

Never push China to do what it does not now dominate. It will be too late to regret.

Anonymous

China does not need ballistic missiles in South America to hit USA

 Truth be said, China does not even need to attempt to station ballistic missiles in South American countries to pose a threat to USA, like what the Russians did in Cuba. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with longer range capabilities can do the work as well, and hypersonic missiles are unstoppable. 'Iron Dome' defense are now a broken myth.


Let us not kid anybody that USA mainland would be safe just because China and Russia have no close base to site those missiles and therefore cannot do any harm to the USA. This is not the era of WW2 where USA distance advantage is a factor that prevented it from being targeted by enemies.

What about nuclear submarines that can also get close to the USA? They can provide retaliation in case of a first strike that managed to take out land-based missile launchers. And not every land-based missile launcher can be taken out all at the same time.

Anonymous