Who is terrorist and what does terrorist mean? Can the Swedish new law against terrorists do the right things?

Who is terrorist and what does terrorist mean? Can the Swedish new law against terrorists do the right things?

The law shall prohibit support and participation in a terrorist organization

Who determines who sets the agenda for using the word "terrorism" Who decides to override an organization as a terrorist?

TERROR "is a word that is terrorized to us.

About Sweden's new law against terrorism works precisely and without any form of discrimination.



Sweden should also stop the Iranian embassy from the Turkish embassy, ​​both countries with other countries supporting international terrorists.

First, we will give a real thing We must first define the exact definition of terrorism.

And we must know who is terrorist and what does the terrorist mean?

 They are the Terrorists who go and force the violence but the area they would fight for their rights, those groups engaged in violent activities beyond the framework of their struggle. They are terrorists going outside their regional struggles, otherwise an ethnic group who would fight for their rights just wants their rights but those politicians who rule this country do not want to recognize the ethnic rights if there is full rights and proper law of neutral then them Ethnic groups can not hold on to a terrorist parenthesis.

if the ethnic group's organization does not go beyond their area as they fight for their freedom to do something violent things against another goal in another country, since they are not terrorists. For example, isis, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime also those countries that support terrorist groups are really real terrorists isis The Islamic brutal terrorist group has made several terrorist attacks in European countries, even in the United States. The Iranian regime has repeatedly done the terrorist attacks in all European countries, even in granite countries and many other countries.

What is a terrorist?
Many of us have probably wondered what a "terrorist" and what "terrorism" is

Perhaps we have wondered why certain acts of a particular organization are called terrorism,

while the corresponding documents of another organization do not.

TERROR "is a word that is terrorized to us.

 An interesting analysis discussion and problematization of this difficult term is given by Michael Brenner, Professor of International Affairs at Pittsburgh University in Counterpunch. It is reproduced here with abbreviations for space reasons.

To pronounce it is to generate fear. Americans can experience nightmarish sensations of 9/11. The apparent horror of the bombing at the Boston Marathon was intensified by associating the incident with "terror" - an abstract distillation of all that is foreign and evil. The traditional media reproduced this. They are experts in producing diffuse emotions. Was this "terrorism?" The country was waiting for a message from Homeland Security, the White House, the FBI. As if the designation itself changes something. The term "terorrism" increases the adrenaline flow.

Therefore, it is important to separate the different meanings contained in the term "terror" in order to better explain the phenomenon and to interpret its meaning. One aspect of "terror" refers to a strategy for achieving political purposes. Such a strategy can have two forms of expression: a rebel group tries to overthrow an existing government or government or occupier trying to suppress an opposition movement. Both have the goal of attacking civilians with violent means. This tactic has a dual purpose. First, fear of the population so that it will take action against the attacker. These measures range from joining the uprising, supporting it and / or becoming unfair to the seated government. The desired effect is to eradicate trust in providing authorities with security and stability.
This has been the logic of terrorism as a strategy in many places, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Kashmir. On the other hand, the authority that has the power can use violence to punish the civilian population if it is viewed as accommodating to the rebellious. This aims to scare and reveal the message that if the insurgents collide with civilians, they risk becoming a victim. This pattern has been clear in the United States occupation and measures against rebel in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia as well as massively.

The Iranian regime has made the terrorist attacks in those countries.

Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark Belgium, The Netherlands, France has also tried in the 90's in Sweden and Norway.

Turkish regime has done the same thing that Iranian regime has done, terror in France against three Kurdish women.

Turkey supports terrorists There are well many video evidence also international well know about it. until yet Turkey supports terrorists in the East against the ethnic group.

If a law would be against terrorists, it should be a law that does justice and without discrimination against it, but the other real terrorists send their men and women as agents then for work directly in the country that provided the law against terrorists.

In this sense, the United States has been in terror in all these countries.



The definitions of terrorism that Washington do is much more ambiguous. The US government has established laws (such as the Patriot Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), based on broad formulas of terrorist acts. They include the category of aid to terrorism.

These lawsuits are so loose or generally formulated that purely practical is a terrorist someone whom the authorities want to call a terrorist.

It should be noted that the US government's accusation against the Boston bomb has "the use of weapons of mass destruction." Can anyone define weapons of mass destruction in this context? For scientific and analytical purposes, the term "terrorism" is generally used to render it useless. In order to make ethical assessments, these broad formulations are meaningless because they do not report the issues of standards, responsibility and accountability in any useful way.

Against this background, the common assumption that terrorism is something that characterizes rebels, qualitatively separated from the violence of established governments or ocuppants is not sustainable. It is true that all states today condemn terrorism and condemn attacks on civilians. There is consensus on the prohibition of initiating or supporting terrorist acts, but this is of little importance when there is no explicit definition of terrorism. Both terrorist acts of non-state actors, and those performed by actors offer difficult and analytical challenges - and derive in part from the interest of parties to avoid clear definitions.

The first obstacle is the dilemma that lies in the common sense that one who is a terrorist for one person is a fighter of freedom for another. Get any government clarify this. One example: The United States has just rehabilitated Mujahedin-e Khalq-MEK, the radical Iranian organization whose extreme acts of violence placed it on everyone's list of terrorist organizations a few years ago. Why the turn? Other than the MEK's aggressive promotional campaign, which meant that MEK spread millions in the lecture fees to a variety of US public figures and that MEK is a bitter opponent of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Washington also supports rebels in the Iranian province of Baluchistan who regularly attack both military and civilian targets. Then we have the "death squads" that the United States encouraged and, in some cases, practiced and ravaged in several Latin American countries during the 1980s and 1990s. Several other states behave in a similar manner.

A second obstacle can be asked as a question: Does not it matter who holds the trigger? This raises subtle questions about public ethics. Let's say that it does not make any difference to the victim. In addition, if the agent could act because someone else creates permissive or necessary conditions, then the latter party is part of the debt. To blame under these circumstances becomes a political process more than analytical.

Think about the use of drones. The US government knows very well that it routinely kills innocent civilians. It may not target them, but it accepts these victims as inevitable in order to achieve the desired goals of drunken attacks. This decision has both a practical and a moral side. Practical because the US pays a political prize on the ground, and diplomatically, which the United States is ready to accept. Morally, in the sense that it means accepting that the purposes sanction the means as motivation to defend their actions. In addition, the question of intent is not crystal clear. Why? Civil victims are not always just an accidental expense. They can also count as one
One final distinction: placing the wars and the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorism in the same category is meaningless. It is not difficult to understand why Iraqi Sunnites took on arms against the United States and the government of the United States established. The fact that al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia conducted several terrorist acts is probably right, but this includes the violence against civilians in their political strategy.

Any systematic attempt to interpret the meaning of the term "terrorism" is likely to lead to frustration, whatever the effort. It is a commendable purpose to clarify political action options as a prelude to informing the public. But this is politically unrealistic in today's political climate, where our leaders thrive in oblivion. This allows hidden motives and contradictions to be hidden as well as responsibility for failure and error. Choices should be won and memoirs will appear as credible. Then, data about acts of violence are easily dismissed with "terrorism."
Sincerely Samuel