NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that in modern society, many people label everyone they don't like as terrorists. Among certain examples I have heard in and out of this forum, labelled as terrorists and terrorist states (in no particular order):

Al-Qaeda
Iraq (and, more recently, Iraqi Insurgents)
Taliban
Hezbollah
Pakistan
Iran
Israel
US
Kosovo
NRA (national rifle association - yes, literally heard that)
North Korea
Venezuela
Animal Liberation Front

I am sure there any many others that you have heard people say are terrorists. Now, some of these I can buy as terrorists or "terrorist states", perhaps, but we seem to be using the word so loosely now that just about anyone we don't like today is a terrorist. Any country that does something we don't like is now a terrorist state.

Does anyone else find this habit annoying?

Poll coming.

I've noticed that in modern society, many people label everyone they don't like as terrorists. Among certain examples I have heard in and out of this forum, labelled as terrorists and terrorist states (in no particular order):

Al-Qaeda
Iraq (and, more recently, Iraqi Insurgents)Taliban
Hezbollah
Pakistan
Iran
Israel
US
Kosovo
NRA (national rifle association - yes, literally heard that)
North Korea
Venezuela
Animal Liberation Front

I am sure there any many others that you have heard people say are terrorists. Now, some of these I can buy as terrorists or "terrorist states", perhaps, but we seem to be using the word so loosely now that just about anyone we don't like today is a terrorist. Any country that does something we don't like is now a terrorist state.

Does anyone else find this habit annoying?

Poll coming.

*bolds the terrorists on the lists*

I would say a terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilian targets to achieve their goals.

That said labels are always a little silly.

It's hard to say, because on the one hand I know terrorism IS real and happening around the world (and the U.S. is not the focus of most of it, despite the ways we delude ourselves that we're the center of everything). On the other hand, I throw around the words terrorism and terrorist a lot. Usually as in,

"If you don't like Queso Crunchwraps you're probably a terrorist," or

"If you drink Pepsi instead of Coke, the terrorists win. Terrorists love Pepsi."

"If you drink Pepsi instead of Coke, the terrorists win. Terrorists love Pepsi."

I love Pepsi!

Yeah, I've noticed it too. And since I am a highschooler, and therefore surrounded by people who feel like they must be on the newest trends, I can safely report that calling someone a terrorist is the new way of saying someone is a loser. I love fads, don't you? :rolleyes:

A terrorist (IMO) is somebody who kills innocents for a cause. For example, if a Kurd kills a Turkish soldier in a fight for indipendence, he is not a terrorist. If the same Kurd does a driveby on a school for the same reason, he is.

I love Pepsi!

Of course you do. You probably like to kick dogs and eat babies too, don't you, terrorist?

Of course you do. You probably like to kick dogs and eat babies too, don't you, terrorist?

But..but... I just like Pepsi!

You'll never take me alive!

Of course you do. You probably like to kick dogs and eat babies too, don't you, terrorist?

Its not my fault babies taste good.

Its not my fault babies taste good.

Or is it?

Its not my fault babies taste good.

Or is it?

Personally, I think its all in the spice. HUGE fan of peppermint and sage. :D

Or is it?

I didn't make that recipe officer. I swear.

But..but... I just like Pepsi!

You'll never take me alive!

You'll lead us back to your headquarters eventually. I know your type. You always go back for more Pepsi.

Its not my fault babies taste good.

Or is it?

Depends on the seasonings he's using. I find if you take a little garlic-infused oil and a pinch of thy--

I've said too much.

A terrorist is a non state backed fighter who uses tactics that kill indiscriminately. (roadside bombs, suicide attacks in public places, ect.) and/or uses threats/intimidation against civilian populations. A non state backed fighter who targets military only is an insurgent.

A terrorist cannot be state backed. If they are, they become state operatives, such as the CIA or KGB.

A terrorist is not someone who kills innocents for a cause, nor a person who deliberately targets civilian infrastructure. A terrorist is one who deliberately attempts to cause terror.

The KKK is terroristic. Vlad the Impaler was a terrorist.

The nature of the terrorist is to destroy a nation's will to fight, instead of the usual type of warfare in which the ability to fight is destroyed. They focus on intimidation, and grand attacks that actually do little. When the people are struck, instead of the army, it creates an effect.

EDIT: And they can be working for the State, dammit.

Also, Coke is illegal for a reason. Pepsi won the Cola Wars.

Rolling squid;13830698']A terrorist is a non state backed fighter who uses tactics that kill indiscriminately. (roadside bombs, suicide attacks in public places, ect.) and/or uses threats/intimidation against civilian populations. A non state backed fighter who targets military only is an insurgent.

A terrorist cannot be state backed. If they are, they become state operatives, such as the CIA or KGB.

So then, define a "terrorist state".

yeah im pretty sick of it.

the worst one is calling IRAN a terrorist organization. iran is no more a terrorist organization for supporting shiite factions in iraq than the US was in supporting the contras in nicaragua in the '80s (that doesnt make either thing RIGHT, just not terroristic)

I like the "non state backed" loophole recently added to the popular definition of terrorism, such that if a state viciously attacks civilians for a political purpose, it's not really terrorism. Just war! Very convenient, that, particularly as the ones who throw around the "terrorism" label the most (the US) is also the country that's viciously attacked civilians for political purposes time and again. But it's not terrorism so it's not that bad. Nice, huh?

"If you drink Pepsi instead of Coke, the terrorists win. Terrorists love Pepsi."
But if you drink Coke, the Nazis win. :p

Rolling squid;13830698']A terrorist is a non state backed fighter who uses tactics that kill indiscriminately. (roadside bombs, suicide attacks in public places, ect.) and/or uses threats/intimidation against civilian populations. A non state backed fighter who targets military only is an insurgent.

A terrorist cannot be state backed. If they are, they become state operatives, such as the CIA or KGB.
Why is this complicated?

A terrorist is someone who uses terror and fear tactics, usually to further a cause. It doesn't matter if they are state-backed, they are still a terrorist. It's just that in our Orwellian time, Nations can't have terrorists IN the leadership. No, because that would be totally un (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:VkvPRj8VnJs7gM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg/453px-George-W-Bush.jpeg)fath (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Dick_Cheney.jpg)om (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:iNnBOmOwnXG2IM:http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/images/2005/rove2.jpg)able (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:50R_qjRyN0aa2M:http://bp3.blogger.com/_VwP7OqMnp38/RjQIVR4gjHI/AAAAAAAAAH0/vGoVvKIogbs/s400/saddam-hussein.jpg).

Really, it's just popular trend to say that government employees can't be terrorists, especially if their YOUR government employees. It's a dangerous popular trend. :/

I like the "non state backed" loophole recently added to the popular definition of terrorism, such that if a state viciously attacks civilians for a political purpose, it's not really terrorism. Just war! Very convenient, that, particularly as the ones who throw around the "terrorism" label the most (the US) is also the country that's viciously attacked civilians for political purposes time and again. But it's not terrorism so it's not that bad. Nice, huh?

its only a problem when its unequally applied.

"non state backed" IS part of the definition of terrorism. terrorism is a tactic used by non governmental groups in order to get some publicity for their cause and to scare people into agreeing to changes in exchange for safety.

war IS worse than terrorism.

But if you drink Coke, the Nazis win. :p


Why is this complicated?

A terrorist is someone who uses terror and fear tactics to further a cause. It doesn't matter if they are state-backed, they are still a terrorist. It's just that in our Orwellian time, Nations can't have terrorists IN the leadership. No, because that would be totally (snip)

Really, it's just popular trend to say that government employees can't be terrorists, especially if their YOUR government employees. It's a dangerous popular trend. :/

As much as I disagree with Bush and his buddies, calling them Terrorists only helps prove the OP's point of it becoming a buzzword.

As much as I disagree with Bush and his buddies, calling them Terrorists only helps prove the OP's point of it becoming a buzzword.

So far, 50% of people agree with me.

10% think I'm a terrorist.

its only a problem when its unequally applied.

"non state backed" IS part of the definition of terrorism.

Not according to Merriam-Webster:

" the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Word originates from 1795.

The 'definition' you are referring to is US Newspeak.

Not according to Merriam-Webster:

" the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Word originates from 1795.

The 'definition' you are referring to is US Newspeak.

no i dont use merriam webster as my source of current political definitions.

no i dont use merriam webster as my source of current political definitions.

I use it for my source of definitions of words in the English language. If I had to rely on political definitions I would believe that "liberal" means "communist" and "conservative" means "fascist" and that "Muslim" means "beheading terrorist boogeyman."

I use it for my source of definitions of words in the English language. If I had to rely on political definitions I would believe that "liberal" means "communist" and "conservative" means "fascist" and that "Muslim" means "beheading terrorist boogeyman."

well that will end you up being rather incorrect in your discussion of modern terrorism. i guess that will be your problem to deal with.

no i dont use merriam webster as my source of current political definitions.

Despite you being wrong, I want to know: Where do you get your "current political definitions"?

As much as I disagree with Bush and his buddies, calling them Terrorists only helps prove the OP's point of it becoming a buzzword.
It does. However, it is true that they (And soooooooo many others in our current time and throughout Human History...sickening) use terror tactics, and did so to further their own agenda.

The real problem that causes it to become a buzzword is that people are dumbasses and listen to whatever the Media or the Bush Admin. calls "Terrorism". The Media/Administration are behind this, because they started this weird "trend" of calling their political enemies "Ebil Terrorists!!1!11one"

Despite you being wrong, I want to know: Where do you get your "current political definitions"?

im 51 years old. i cannot point you to the day i read the definition of modern terrorism.

its been around for a very long time eh?

there is a modern terrorist "movement" (not the right word) that encompasses the IRA, the ETA, the PLO (does the plo still exist?) and many other extra-governmental groups that use terror to get publicity and to pressure the public into acquiescing to their demands.

it has to be targetted at civilians, not military or police. it cant be governmental, it has to have a political point (as opposed to simple criminal extortion of some kind)

governments are not terrorists. insurgents are not (defacto) terrorists. the attacks against our (US) military personel and installations around the world are NOT terrorist attacks.

but, in the end, no matter if you use this definition or not you MUST apply it evenly. so if you insist that IRAN is a terrorist country for supporting shiite militias in iraq, so must you call the US a terrorist country for doing the same in various countries throughout the past 100 years.

there is a modern terrorist "movement" (not the right word) that encompasses the IRA, the ETA, the PLO (does the plo still exist?) and many other extra-governmental groups that use terror to get publicity and to pressure the public into acquiescing to their demands.



In name. The PLO was an organization based around Fatah, with the avowed purpose of destroying the Jewish state. However, after Arafat's death, talks began between the head of Fatah (I can never remember his name. Is it Abbas?) and Sharon for the purpose of peace, which violated the PLO charter of never accepting Israel as a nation.

So as a name and rallying point, yes. However, its leading role as terror organization extrordinare is now between Hamas and Hezbollah, with the poor PLO left out of the running.

well that will end you up being rather incorrect in your discussion of modern terrorism. i guess that will be your problem to deal with.

You know, I can think of very few appropriate responses to this kind of sophistry, and none of them are appropriate for this forum. Oh well.

You know, I can think of very few appropriate responses to this kind of sophistry, and none of them are appropriate for this forum. Oh well.

trying to talk about terrorism as if the french revolution is relevant to today's politics is as useful as talking about liberalism as if it means libertarianism.

Terrorism is in eye of the beholder. Anyone not directly under a government acting againts a nation (wrether they target only military targets or not) is branded terrorism these days it seems, and I wouldn't be surprised if the term "terrorist" is thrown around lightly in US these days. However, I don't live in the states and as such can't know for sure.

trying to talk about terrorism as if the french revolution is relevant to today's politics is as useful as talking about liberalism as if it means libertarianism.

French Revolution? No hon. I am talking the English Language; which you are absurdly claiming to be "incorrect." Let's just invent our own political definitions! HOORAY BUZZWORDS!

trying to talk about terrorism as if the french revolution is relevant to today's politics is as useful as talking about liberalism as if it means libertarianism.

Dammit, WE'RE THE LIBERALS! Not them! They-they don't DESERVE to be called liberals! *Sob*
:p

French Revolution? No hon. I am talking the English Language; which you are absurdly claiming to be "incorrect." Let's just invent our own political definitions! HOORAY BUZZWORDS!

wasnt it YOU who traced the term back to 1795? what do you think the word was describing back then?

in any case, bickering over definitions is tedious. the more important point is that the definition must be used consistently. so....is the US a terrorist state or not?

So then, define a "terrorist state".

a state who's current leaders came to power by terrorism.

Also, counter-point to the people that terrorism can be state backed, or is trying to destroy the will of a nation. The whole point of modern warfare is to destroy a nation's will to fight. Mines are a great defensive tool, but they are designed to cripple, not kill. Why? So that johnny soldier can loose his leg, go home to mom and pop civilian, and remind them that maybe fighting the war isn't such a good idea after all.

Firebombings of German and Japanese cities during WWII? Same idea. Kill those you can, but destroy as much as possible, demoralizing people. The atomic bomb? same principle. You get the idea. Hence why terrorism cannot be state backed, otherwise any nation at war would be a terrorist state.

Al Quaida, Hezzbolla, and the ALF are all terrorist organizations. I suspect every nation on your list has been a terrorist backer, at times.

But, liberal as I am, I don't think you can say the National Rifle Assosiation is a terrorist group.

The bottom line is that terrorism does have certain meanings and definitions, but its notoriously hard to define, and means different things to different people. However, merely because it is used as a buzzword doesn't mean it has no legitimate meaning. "Nazi" has a legitimate meaning to, but name one thing that's seen more use as a buzzword.

*bolds the terrorists on the lists*

If you include nations that have backed terrorists, then you damn well have to include the US, and probably most other national governments as well. Unless you define terrorism as "against the United States."

But, liberal as I am, I don't think you can say the National Rifle Assosiation is a terrorist group.

I'm not saying that you've said it, but I have heard two liberals say just that. I wanted to say "You've lost your bloody mind", but words simply fail me at times.

If you include nations that have backed terrorists, then you damn well have to include the US, and probably most other national governments as well. Unless you define terrorism as "against the United States."

That's a really convenient definition. *writes that down*

I'm not saying that you've said it, but I have heard two liberals say just that. I wanted to say "You've lost your bloody mind", but words simply fail me at times.



i may have heard someone say that too but i cant think of a reasonable definition of terrorism that would cover the NRA.

i may have heard someone say that too but i cant think of a reasonable definition of terrorism that would cover the NRA.

One of the guys who said it was actually on the SWAT team until a few months ago. He was the most fierce liberal I had met in a while (outside of NSG), and literally had a trunk full of weaponry of various types in his cruiser.

After a while, the mind gives up trying to make sense of it.

One of the guys who said it was actually on the SWAT team until a few months ago. He was the most fierce liberal I had met in a while (outside of NSG), and literally had a trunk full of weaponry of various types in his cruiser.

After a while, the mind gives up trying to make sense of it.

lol. damn that NRA for making sure that i can have a trunk full of guns!

"If you drink Pepsi instead of Coke, the terrorists win. Terrorists love Pepsi."

Heartily agreed good sir!!!:p

lol. damn that NRA for making sure that i can have a trunk full of guns!

Quite. I'm quite happy for the NRA. I'd never be able to have my trunk full of guns without them.

so long as there ain't any pepsi in that trunk... i'm watching you...:sniper:

The bottom line is that terrorism does have certain meanings and definitions, but its notoriously hard to define, and means different things to different people. However, merely because it is used as a buzzword doesn't mean it has no legitimate meaning. "Nazi" has a legitimate meaning to, but name one thing that's seen more use as a buzzword.

I think that's a Godwin, but I'm not sure. Either way, it's a very good point.

lol. damn that NRA for making sure that i can have a trunk full of guns!

well, you never know when you might need them... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZombieApocalypse)

Rolling squid;13831057']well, you never know when you might need them... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZombieApocalypse)

damn straight!

my sister in laws boyfriend was so paranoid that he always took a gun with him no matter where he went. even 5 miles up the road to the annual farm equipment auction.

you never know when the zombie apocalypse is going to happen. no sense getting caught flat footed!

(no he wasnt worried about zombies, but he did worry about random crime.)

(no, hes not dead, they moved away)

*bolds the terrorists on the lists*

Terrorists to you, perhaps, to others, maybe not.

wasnt it YOU who traced the term back to 1795? what do you think the word was describing back then?

Gee, what could the word "terrorism" have been describing? I dunno. Let me guess - luckily the dictionary provides a few clues - could it be - perhaps - TERRORISM?

;)

in any case, bickering over definitions is tedious.

This thread is about the word "terrorism." Definitions would seem to be key to the point.

Rolling squid;13831057']well, you never know when you might need them... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZombieApocalypse)

Absolutely. I'm ready for the zombie uprising. I have guns; I have ammunition; I have door locks; and I have windows too small to walk through.

Gee, what could the word "terrorism" have been describing? I dunno. Let me guess - luckily the dictionary provides a few clues - could it be - perhaps - TERRORISM?

;)



This thread is about the word "terrorism." Definitions would seem to be key to the point.

*shaking my head*

so, using YOUR definition of terrorism, is the US a terrorist state?

I've noticed that in modern society, many people label everyone they don't like as terrorists. Among certain examples I have heard in and out of this forum, labelled as terrorists and terrorist states (in no particular order):

Al-Qaeda
Iraqi Insurgents
Taliban
Hezbollah
Animal Liberation Front
Your mom

I am sure there any many others that you have heard people say are terrorists. Now, some of these I can buy as terrorists or "terrorist states", perhaps, but we seem to be using the word so loosely now that just about anyone we don't like today is a terrorist. Any country that does something we don't like is now a terrorist state.

Does anyone else find this habit annoying?

Poll coming.

I've edited the list to display actual terrorist groups/organizations.

*bolds the terrorists on the lists*

You forgot to bold a few names there.

In name. The PLO was an organization based around Fatah, with the avowed purpose of destroying the Jewish state. However, after Arafat's death, talks began between the head of Fatah (I can never remember his name. Is it Abbas?) and Sharon for the purpose of peace, which violated the PLO charter of never accepting Israel as a nation.


They dropped that part of the charter in the early 1990's.

You forgot to bold a few names there.

Who else would you suggest I bold?

Who else would you suggest I bold?

Israel. They've done much the same as Pakistan.
They helped with Apartheid South Africas nuclear program, funded private armies (the SLA and Falangists in Lebanon), kidnapped and assasinated people all over the world....Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all...

Israel. They've done much the same as Pakistan.
They helped with Apartheid South Africas nuclear program, funded private armies (the SLA and Falangists in Lebanon), kidnapped and assasinated people all over the world....Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all...

Ok. I missed one.

*shaking my head*

so, using YOUR definition of terrorism, is the US a terrorist state?

Sure. Any state that has utilized systemic terror to influence a population towards a political goal can be described that way. I find this definition a lot more appropriate since it gets back to what terrorism *is* instead of who it is supposedly practiced by.

Ok. I missed one.


Happens to us all, Sir.

I've noticed that in modern society, many people label everyone they don't like as terrorists. Among certain examples I have heard in and out of this forum, labelled as terrorists and terrorist states (in no particular order):

Al-Qaeda
Iraq (and, more recently, Iraqi Insurgents)
Taliban
Hezbollah
Pakistan
Iran
Israel
US
Kosovo
NRA (national rifle association - yes, literally heard that)
North Korea
Venezuela
Animal Liberation Front

I am sure there any many others that you have heard people say are terrorists. Now, some of these I can buy as terrorists or "terrorist states", perhaps, but we seem to be using the word so loosely now that just about anyone we don't like today is a terrorist. Any country that does something we don't like is now a terrorist state.

Does anyone else find this habit annoying?

Poll coming.

Yeah, well people like me are considered terrorist sympathizers or home grown terrorists. Evidently if you disagree with the gov't or if you want to go and help people out in the middle east, then you are deemed a terrorist. So yes, the term is used so very loosely. Almost like the Red Scare.

Sure. Any state that has utilized systemic terror to influence a population towards a political goal can be described that way. I find this definition a lot more appropriate since it gets back to what terrorism *is* instead of who it is supposedly practiced by.

and you dont find that, thinking about it, virtually every nation on earth (and certainly every revolutionary group) qualifies as "terrorists" makes the whole concept just a tad .... useless? makes it just a meaningless buzzword to be thrown around like a swear word on the playground?

and you dont find that, thinking about it, virtually every nation on earth (and certainly every revolutionary group) qualifies as "terrorists" makes the whole concept just a tad .... useless? makes it just a meaningless buzzword to be thrown around like a swear word on the playground?

Yes, and politically that's exactly what happens. Because the phrase describes just another tactic of warfare, but there's much political gain to be had in trying to make like it's Pure Evil that only Non Governments are capable of using.

Yes, and politically that's exactly what happens. Because the phrase describes just another tactic of warfare, but there's much political gain to be had in trying to make like it's Pure Evil that only Non Governments are capable of using.

you dont think that there is some value in differentiating political movements that use violence against civilians as a means to get their way and those that only use non-violent means?

you dont think that there is some value in differentiating political movements that use violence against civilians as a means to get their way and those that only use non-violent means?

I don't think labeling one "terrorist" and the other something else is particularly valuable. One might as well use the word "devil-worshiping" or "infidel" because it has the same relative connotation. "Terrorism" becomes just a buzz-word, kind of like "liberal" does, and in the end these words tend to mostly mean either "us" or "them."

I don't think labeling one "terrorist" and the other something else is particularly valuable. One might as well use the word "devil-worshiping" or "infidel" because it has the same relative connotation. "Terrorism" becomes just a buzz-word, kind of like "liberal" does, and in the end these words tend to mostly mean either "us" or "them."

so to you, a group that it working to change society peacefully....the national organization for women, for example... is fine lumped in with those that use violence..the weathermen underground, for example?

there is no usefulness in classifying groups by the tactics they use, even the illegal ones?

terrorism becomes a buzzword only if you dont use a good definition of the word.

"non state backed" IS part of the definition of terrorism.

so what should we call it if official agents of the canadian government hijack a plane to crash it into a civilian/non-legitimate target building, intentionally killing non-combatants for the purpose of creating a climate of anxiety and terror in the wider public in order to pressure some other group (the government, for example) to do something?

so what should we call it if official agents of the canadian government hijack a plane to crash it into a civilian/non-legitimate target building, intentionally killing non-combatants for the purpose of creating a climate of anxiety and terror in the wider public in order to pressure some other group (the government, for example) to do something?

an act of war.

unless you meant INSIDE canada... then its ... well it makes no sense because the government has just done something to pressure the government..

if the government of a country keeps is people in a constant state of fear--the ussr under stalin for example, that is OPPRESSION.

if the government of a country keeps is people in a constant state of fear--the ussr under stalin for example, that is OPPRESSION.

They don't call it the 'red terror' for nothing.

They don't call it the 'red terror' for nothing.

its not uncommon for tyrants to keep power by terrorizing their own people. either by threats of violence or by leading them to think that the whole world is against them and is ready to invade at any time. or both.

there is no sense calling them "terrorists".

i mean really some days george bush scares the crap out of me but i wouldnt call him a terrorist.

an act of war.

and there is no ontological distinction between doing the plane thing and just having their troops open fire on the other guys' troops?

Terrorist is used as a buzzword, and to create a divide between "us" and "them".

Iran is a "terrorist state" because it has missiles that could potentially hit it's neighbours. But Israel isn't a "terrorist state" even though it does exactly the same thing.

Saddam Hussein "terrorised" his own people, but Islom Karimov is an ally of ours against "terrorism".

Regardless of how you define the word, it's current use is clearly inconsistent and highly propagandistic.

an act of war.

unless you meant INSIDE canada... then its ... well it makes no sense because the government has just done something to pressure the government..

if the government of a country keeps is people in a constant state of fear--the ussr under stalin for example, that is OPPRESSION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

and there is no ontological distinction between doing the plane thing and just having their troops open fire on the other guys' troops?

you cant use big words with me, i dont understand the subtleties of them.

no, there is not big distiction. its an act of war.

sneak attacks are sneak attacks, they are not as HONORABLE as declaring war then attacking but *shrug* some countries arent into honor (or dont feel the "enemy" is worthy of honor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

that, had it been carried out, would have been a criminal conspiracy on the part of whoever in the govt organized it.

now if the cuban nationals in miami had decided to go terrorist in order to press their case for overthrowing castro, THEY would have been terrorists. any govt official aiding them would have been a terrorist HIMSELF.

Terrorist is used as a buzzword, and to create a divide between "us" and "them".

Iran is a "terrorist state" because it has missiles that could potentially hit it's neighbours. But Israel isn't a "terrorist state" even though it does exactly the same thing.

Saddam Hussein "terrorised" his own people, but Islom Karimov is an ally of ours against "terrorism".

Regardless of how you define the word, it's current use is clearly inconsistent and highly propagandistic.

that is due to a poor definition of terrorism and terrorists.

you cant use big words with me, i dont understand the subtleties of them.

no, there is not big distiction. its an act of war.

is one more ethical than the other?

that, had it been carried out, would have been a criminal conspiracy on the part of whoever in the govt organized it.

now if the cuban nationals in miami had decided to go terrorist in order to press their case for overthrowing castro, THEY would have been terrorists. any govt official aiding them would have been a terrorist HIMSELF.

My point is that it makes perfect sense for the government to pressure the government, contrary to your claim. There has long been suspicion, although without proof, that such a conspiracy occurred in the Spanish-American War (Remember the Maine). As for labeling it a "criminal conspiracy" in an attempt to render the government guiltless, this is a foolish distinction when the conspiracy is organized and led by the government's highest-ranking officials, up to and including the President.

is one more ethical than the other?

well, not that im the judge of such things, but when the japanese attacked pearl harbor--a military attack-- we thought very poorly of it. surely starting a war with a sneak attack on a civilian target would be seen as unethical at the very least.

My point is that it makes perfect sense for the government to pressure the government, contrary to your claim. There has long been suspicion, although without proof, that such a conspiracy occurred in the Spanish-American War (Remember the Maine). As for labeling it a "criminal conspiracy" in an attempt to render the government guiltless, this is a foolish distinction when the conspiracy is organized and led by the government's highest-ranking officials, up to and including the President.

all im saying is that it doesnt count as terrorism. i would never defend it as justifiable (any more than the conspiracy to get us into the current war in iraq is justifiable)

well, not that im the judge of such things, but when the japanese attacked pearl harbor--a military attack-- we thought very poorly of it. surely starting a war with a sneak attack on a civilian target would be seen as unethical at the very least.

leave out the 'starting' aspect. suppose hostilities are well-known and have already commenced.

Yeah. I feel like it is too over used. I hear it at least once a day and I am getting sick of it.

so to you, a group that it working to change society peacefully....the national organization for women, for example... is fine lumped in with those that use violence..the weathermen underground, for example?

...no. I just don't think the "terrorist" label is a good way to differentiate between them. It's an emotionally-charged label and it's used incorrectly for cheap political goals.

there is no usefulness in classifying groups by the tactics they use, even the illegal ones?

Of course there is. But "terrorism" as you are defining it is NOT based on tactics, but rather the silly condition that it has to be non-governmental. According to your definition a government cannot, by definition, commit an act of terrorism.

terrorism becomes a buzzword only if you dont use a good definition of the word.

Right, like a definition unsupported by the dictionary.

leave out the 'starting' aspect. suppose hostilities are well-known and have already commenced.

you mean like the blitz?

its a part of war. its subtleties of when attacking civilian targets in war is a war crime and when its just business as usual is pretty much beyond me.

the bombing of london, the bombing of dresden, the bombing of tokyo. none of them were prosecuted at war crimes after ww2 were they? they are all rather outrageous conduct.

but anyway, if it is to have a "this is a bad thing even when in the middle of a war" label, its a war crime.

its a part of war.

can non-states engage in war?

can non-states engage in war?

i suppose so. revolutionaries certainly can. in a civil war its most common for one side to be the government and the other side to be "not the government"

i suppose so. revolutionaries certainly can. in a civil war its most common for one side to be the government and the other side to be "not the government"

so then is 'terrorism' anything at all? if the distinguishing factor in the hijacked plane full of civvies crashed into a building full of civvies story between it being terrorism or being an act of war is the existence of orders from the canadian government, but non-governments can also engage in acts of war, then what work exactly is the term 'terrorism' doing?

so then is 'terrorism' anything at all? if the distinguishing factor in the hijacked plane full of civvies crashed into a building full of civvies story between it being terrorism or being an act of war is the existence of orders from the canadian government, but non-governments can also engage in acts of war, then what work exactly is the term 'terrorism' doing?

terrorism is when you attack a civilian target in order to get your political agenda advanced.

its not part of war. its not something the government does. its a tactic used by non-governmental groups.

for example black september took israeli hostages at the munich olympics, that was an act of terrorism. they werent going to war with germany or with israel. they were using a shocking act to get the world to take notice of palestinian grievances.

thats why there are only specific groups who are terrorist groups (no matter what george bush says). the iraqi insurgent groups who only attack US military personelle and installations are NOT terrorists. those that bomb civilians in marketplaces ARE terrorists.

so if we look at that list from the first page:

Al-Qaeda
Iraq (and, more recently, Iraqi Insurgents)
Taliban
Hezbollah
Pakistan
Iran
Israel
US
Kosovo
NRA (national rifle association - yes, literally heard that)
North Korea
Venezuela
Animal Liberation Front

alqaeda specializes in terrorist acts.

iraq was not a terrorist no matter what hussein did to his people

taliban--same same even though they tended to keep order by terrorizing the people into submission--no one wants to end up executed in the soccer stadium for wearing a revealing burqa

iran, venezuela, the US, NK, pakistan -- same same.

hezbollah--terrorists who attack civilian targets in israel. the kidnapping of israeli soldier--not terrorism.

nra--no

ALF--probably not. besides they arent organized enough to be a terrorist organization.

kosovo--i have no idea.

terrorism is when you attack a civilian target in order to get your political agenda advanced.

its not part of war. its not something the government does. its a tactic used by non-governmental groups.


Right. Because governments don't attack civilian targets, certainly not to advance any political agenda, and certainly not as a part of war!

:rolleyes:

Right. Because governments don't attack civilian targets, certainly not to advance any political agenda, and certainly not as a part of war!

:rolleyes:

governments do that with disturbing frequency.

that doesnt make them terrorists.

(Groucho comes out)

Terrorism? That's the secret word of the day!

(Balloons rain down)

governments do that with disturbing frequency.

that doesnt make them terrorists.

Yes, it makes what they are doing terrorism, again by definition. I really don't know why you have a problem with this.

Fokking morons. Pakistan is not a terrorist-sponsoring state.

Yes, it makes what they are doing terrorism, again by definition. I really don't know why you have a problem with this.

i feel that you are being disingenuous. you know full well why i have a problem with using your definition. ive gone over it more than once. anyone who can read can understand my point even if they dont agree with it.

Fokking morons. Pakistan is not a terrorist-sponsoring state.

That's a generalization, and those do piss off. Many think that just because the country is from the Middle East, it's a terrorist sponsoring country. Middle East does not equate to terrorism, people.

Yes, terrorism has been a buzzword for a long time. I prefer to simply refer to those who kill civilians as "murderers". Edit: Just in case any one feels like arguing semantics about my choice of words, I know that civilians aren't automatically innocent, and didn't mean that someone forced to kill in self-defence would be a murderer or anything like that.

That's a generalization, and those do piss off. Many think that just because the country is from the Middle East, it's a terrorist sponsoring country. Middle East does not equate to terrorism, people.

Of course not. In the minds of many, every country in the Middle East except Israel- the bastion of equality and democracy- is a terrorist sponsor.

Of course not. In the minds of many, every country in the Middle East except Israel- the bastion of equality and democracy- is a terrorist sponsor.

Which is absolute bullshit. (not your statement, Gauthier)


On a side note: WTF happened to the smileys?!:eek:

terrorism is when you attack a civilian target in order to get your political agenda advanced.

its not part of war. its not something the government does. its a tactic used by non-governmental groups.

right, but we just established that non-governmental groups can also go to war and that determining whether an otherwise identical violent enterprise was terrorism or an act of war was contingent on whether those performing the act were ordered to do so by the canadian government. so merely stating that it is not a part of war doesn't actually clarify anything - how are you making that determination?

right, but we just established that non-governmental groups can also go to war and that determining whether an otherwise identical violent enterprise was terrorism or an act of war was contingent on whether those performing the act were ordered to do so by the canadian government. so merely stating that it is not a part of war doesn't actually clarify anything - how are you making that determination?

you cant tell the difference between an act of terrorism and a war?

that is due to a poor definition of terrorism and terrorists.

Every dictionary will give you a different definition. The real issue, however, in my view, is that it has been deliberately twisted for propagandistic ends, and worse, it's been done by people I don't agree with!

you cant tell the difference between an act of terrorism and a war?

i think they are partially overlapping sets.
i'm not sure your proposed system of definitions can tell the difference.

Remember the old adage: One man's terrorist is other man's freedom fighter.

However, when terrorism is defined by an action a state cannot perform it is usually done for the benefit of the state in question: Thus actions of USA could not be labeled as terrorism according to their law because terrorism is defined as, slightly simplified, unlawful actions against a state.

For that matter, the EU definition is (from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism)):
The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002).[22] This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which:
"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

Which clearly doesn't exclude governments from the list of possible terrorists.