Doesn't the fact that governments can't agree on a definition of terrorism imply that most if not all countries actually indulge in terrorism of some sort or another? Terrorising a people or country for some political or strategic purpose is hardly uncommon, and we all know the various ways it can be done.
What are we talking about here anyway, state terrorism or group terrorism? Or are they in principle the same way of doing something?
Nevere heard of anyone saying that terrorism is a racist term, as I uderstand it racism is picking on a certain race i.e. blacks, American, Scots, Muslims, Jews etc ( although the last two could be classed as bigotry as well) so if you said all terrorists are Muslims maybe that could be classed as racial because obvioulsy all Muslims are not terrorists and we have seen non muslim terror groups like the real IRA, ETA, Combat 18 etc etc etc. So I guess if you classed a whole race as terrorists that could be racial.
Can you be a terrorists if you have never commited an terrorist act? well let me ask you is OBL a terrorist? he never carried out any attacks never planned any attacks ( he's not that clever) he's only the money man so all he did was hand over cash. Look at the UK anyone who knows somebody is planning an attack but fails to inform the police can be charged under the terrorism act but are they terrorists?
What is a terrorists well thats difficult, it's the old saying one mans terroists is another mans freedom fighter. Take William Wallace a national hero in Scotland as a freedom fighter but the English called him a terrorist ( some still do), same with ETA the Basque people would class them as freedom fighters the Spanish class them as terrorists same as HAMAS fighting for the Islamic states freedom fighters or terrorists.
AS for what I think terrorism is - Either threats or actions desgined to spread terror to bring political, idealogical or nationalisitic change.
Edward Teach said this in post #1 : I read that some believe that terrorist is a racist term. Why???
Who are the “some” who believe the label, terrorist is racist? I’m sure terrorists would think the label is racist. Falsely charging racism is a popular weapon, so it is not surprising that terrorists would have picked it up.
I would say someone who didn't actually carry out the act of terrorism could still be considered a terrorist if specific actions directly aided a specific act of terrorism.
A few examples I could think of would be
-transporting a terrorist (with knowledge of the nature of what was going to happen)
-giving financial aid to terrorists (with knowledge of the nature of what was going to happen)
-providing arms/bombs/materials
-participating in the planning of a terrorist act
simply showing a favorable opinion towards a group/person who carries out a terrorist act, (ie Palestinians supporting Hamas) cannot be considered terrorism.
Who are the “some” who believe the label, terrorist is racist? I’m sure terrorists would think the label is racist. Falsely charging racism is a popular weapon, so it is not surprising that terrorists would have picked it up.
Bottom line, an individual isn't a terrorist until that individual has committed
an act of terrorism."Terror" and "terrorism" are meaningless racist xenophobic
ethnocidal buzz words when they flow from the Zionist controlled, corporate
controlled media which is an un-elected de facto 4th branch of government here
in this country. "Islamo-Fascists","Islamic Fundamentalist"," Radical Islamist"
or "Jehadists" have become silly right wing talking point xenophobic/racist code
word designations implying non-Caucasian inferiority or even sub-human
criminality. Small wonder so many craven sheeple brainwashed lemming-like
Americans equate 26.4% of this earth's population with "terrorist".
Whoop45 : "Terror" and "terrorism" are meaningless racist xenophobic
ethnocidal buzz words
I'd agree that the term is meaningless and is short hand for peope that don't want to think in terms more complicated that good and evil, and just like the media used to stereotype black guys as pimps and drug dealers, it has now come to denote Arabs, or anyone who looks like they may have come from the Middle East.
When Whoop45 says,"Bottom line, an individual isn't a terrorist until that individual has committed an act of terrorism," they are in effect defining the meaning of terrorist as one who does commit terror. Then after defining the term, they go on to say it is meaningless. Beautiful.
But then they continue their own racist definition of their idea of racisim by saying, "Terror" and "terrorism" are meaningless racist xenophobic ethnocidal buzz words when they flow from the Zionist controlled, corporate controlled media which is an un-elected de facto 4th branch of government here
in this country."
So I guess terrorists can call themselves terrorists and it is not racist because the word is not flowing from Zionist controlled media.
The term is just lazy and ambiguous. If depending on what side you're on, you can label the other side a terrorist, then what's the actual point of the word? Does it serve any useful purpose?
h@ts said this in post #10 : The term is just lazy and ambiguous. If depending on what side you're on, you can label the other side a terrorist, then what's the actual point of the word? Does it serve any useful purpose?
Here is a defintion of terrorist:
"A person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence."
While there may be disagreement about who is or is not a terrorist, or whether terrorism is justified, there is nothing ambiguous about the term terrorist.
The term is as clear as a bell. It seems to me that the only ones who would deny the use of the word are ones who do not regard the terrorist activity as terrorism, or think it is a justifiable response to some greater injustice.
EUCLID said this in post #11 :
Here is a defintion of terrorist:
"A person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence."
Shock and awe, the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nazi bombing of London WWII, the bombing of Dresden WWII, etc etc, mostly civilian targets, all intended to "frighten people or governments into doing..." etc.
quote:
there is nothing ambiguous about the term terrorist.
If it wasn't ambiguous then we would have a definition that everyone can agree on, but because governments sometimes take action that could be deemed terrorism, they won't agree on a term.
quote:
The term is as clear as a bell. It seems to me that the only ones who would deny the use of the word are ones who do not regard the terrorist activity as terrorism, or think it is a justifiable response to some greater injustice.
So were the Mujahadeen terrorists or freedom fighters (many of whom went on to become Al Qaeda) when the US backed them in their fight against the Russian's in Afghanistan in the 80's?? Were they terrorists or freedom fighters, because they haven't changed, they've just picked a different target - America instead of the Soviets.
Shock and awe, the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nazi bombing of London WWII, the bombing of Dresden WWII, etc etc, mostly civilian targets, all intended to "frighten people or governments into doing..." etc.
Got to disagree with these examples because although they were mostly civilain targets they were carried out during a time of war it's bad when the innocents are targetted but that is a downside of war terrorism is a diffrent people at Omagh were not at war when the IRA blew that place to hell were they ditto the Israellis whose hotel was bombed a few years ago, or the people whose plane was bombed over Lockerbie. These victims were not in war thier countries were not at war and thats the diffrence between terrorism and war.
lodgebo said this in post #14 :
Got to disagree with these examples because although they were mostly civilain targets they were carried out during a time of war it's bad when the innocents are targetted but that is a downside of war terrorism is a diffrent people at Omagh were not at war when the IRA blew that place to hell were they ditto the Israellis whose hotel was bombed a few years ago, or the people whose plane was bombed over Lockerbie. These victims were not in war thier countries were not at war and thats the diffrence between terrorism and war.
That brings up another problem: when is a conflict a war and who decides if it's a war, and therefore the rules of war should apply? The IRA classed themselves as soldiers and did indeed claim they were at war with the British, as no doubt do the inurgents in Iraq?
In the end terrorism is just a word for a violent action which the side being attacked can deem illigal. I'm sure there are many Iraqis who deem the US invasion of Iraq illigal, terrorist, imperialist etc. Does it make any difference? Is it just name calling, propaganda?
05-09-2007 09:40 PM
