• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Before we continue this war - can we define terrorism?

F

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Hi,

Before we continue a "war on terrorism", can we please define what "terrorism" means exactly in this context? Quite an important point since so many lives rest on this.

Andy
 
  • Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
    Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
    Function: noun
    Date: 1795
    : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
    - ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
    - ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
 
Terrorism is attacking civilian populations for political gain.

Terrorists are people who will attack civilian populations for political gain. Kurds for example are a civilian population. Gassing them is terrorism.

Terrorist sympathizers are those who would aid a terrorist in committing terrorism.
 
Originally posted by: amdforever2
Terrorism is attacking civilian populations for political gain.

Terrorists are people who will attack civilian populations for political gain. Kurds for example are a civilian population. Gassing them is terrorism.

Terrorist sympathizers are those who would aid a terrorist in committing terrorism.
Click to expand...

So, by that definition would the attacks on Khobar towers, the USS Cole, and troops in Kuwait be terrorist acts?
 
I knew a dictionary definition would come sooner rather than later. 😱

However, if you took the literal definition then most (including the US) would be guilty of "terrorism". For example economic/trade towards other countries or a large scale military build up with the promised threat of war.

I don't think (hope) this is the meaning implied by the current administration. If it is then we're all culpable to some extent.

Andy
 
  • ...violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
I'd liken it to extortion.
 
The US tested syphillis on minorities not so long ago. I'd call that attacking the cilvilian population. Is that terrorism?

Andy "I have a whole pocket full of examples to pull out"
 
violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Click to expand...

What, like forcing regime change? Doh, I thought this was supposed to be about disarmament!?

Andy

ps I can tell I'm in danger of opening up too many arguements at once - can we stick to what "terrorist/terrorism" really means to the general public?
 
Anyone who is fighting on your side. Anyone not on your side is a terrorist. got it?
Click to expand...

So, if kurdish "freedom fighters" were targetting *Iraqi* civilians that would be alright? Because they are on *our* side.

hmmmmm.
 
Terrorism is way too subjective a term to ever define to everyone's satisfaction. In the past year and a half it's become so overused that it's really lost its meaning.
 
Terrorism is way too subjective a term to ever define to everyone's satisfaction. In the past year and a half it's become so overused that it's really lost its meaning.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. So why is the US trying to start/has started a war in the name of it? Surely they'd be better calling it:

"A war on countries (but only their administrations, obviously) we think are/could/might threaten us now/at some point in the future"

Because that's the way it is. You CAN'T start a war on a philosophy - only on an/a group of individual(s).

IMHO better to tell it the way it is - not to make it sound like "good vs. evil".

Andy
 
Maybe I should have given this thread a nice racist theme - like so many at the moment. I don't know. Maybe:

"The French are all cowards."

or

"I saw a good documentary about how France is cr*p."

or

"France *owes* us for WWII because they are wimps and therefore should go along with everything we say until the year dot."

Maybe THEN I'll get a few more replies on this, a real issue that needs to be debated.

Having spoken to my French friends - I'm surprised that there's any French people reading/posting to this forum anymore.

Andy
 
I'm more concerned with "Domestic Terrorism"

Definitional Changes within the Patriot Act of 2001

1. The United States Code. Title 18, Section 3077 now reads:

An "act of terrorism" means an act of domestic or international terrorism.

2. Under Title 18, Section 2331, a new category - "domestic terrorism" - has been created and means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

3. Under Title 18, Section 2332b(g)(5)(A), the definition of "federal crime of terrorism" has been changed from an action intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" to read that a federal action of terrorism is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problems with the Patriot Act

1. The Patriot Act gives the President and the Attorney General a great deal of latitude in regard to what they perceive as acts of terrorism - especially those actions that are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government."

Will speaking out in a public forum against the government's "War on Terrorism" be seen as an action "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government?" Does intimidation" or "coercion" include questioning or exposing government conduct? Does publishing something that the government wishes suppressed become an act designed "to retaliate against government conduct?" Will driving around with a hunting rifle in the gun rack of a pick-up truck "intimidate" a government employee?

2. Americans do not know if our historical right to protest and to disagree with our government - through the rights to assemble and petition which are guaranteed in the First Amendment - will be protected.

3. Despite the fact that a Congressional oversight committee was created to keep a watchful eye on the Justice Department while it carries out the provisions of the Patriot Act, in September 2002, Senators and Congressmen from both parties reported that the Justice Department had refused to provide all required information that would allow the oversight committee to do its job.

4. All old and new definitions of terrorism within the US Code continue to include actions of civilians against the government while they exclude possible terroristic actions of the US government against its citizens.


In theory, according to this scary definintion, the acts of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks could be interpreted as domestic terrorism
 
I can't believe that there's a "patriot" act. Patriotism/Patriotic is the label usually attributed by those to an arguement that is otherwise indefensible.

When I hear "its patriotic" - I hope for a better reason or I go to sleep.

Andy
 
Originally posted by: justint
Originally posted by: Fencer128
And can we please define "Freedom Fighters"?

Andy
Click to expand...

Anyone who is fighting on your side. Anyone not on your side is a terrorist. got it?
Click to expand...

Ahhh yess.

Repeat after me: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It's this kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top