Is The Word "terrorist" Ever Used Too Loosely?

[Ho-oh'sRealm 0]

The concept of terrorism is defined as "using tactics that go beyond conventional warfare" and "using terror as a means of persuasion"."One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."Terrorists do horrible things; level buildings, bomb places of worship, plant car bombs and subvert normal activities.There's also "domestic terrorism". The first George Bush referred to people in the Rodney King riots as terrorists. 1. Why do we refer to our enemies as terrorists? What does that show about us? 2. Has anyone, a person, or group been unrightfully called a terrorist? 3. What would happen if we never used the word? 4. Terrorism is the ultimate insensitive word; for the reason that it means to incite war. Could more be achieved with understanding and tolerance, and how? Obama has also stopped referring to "The War on Terrorism". He now calls it, an "Overseas Contigency Plan", the contigency obviously being war. Some difference.So discuss.

[sheepdog 10]

The concept of terrorism is defined as "using tactics that go beyond conventional warfare" and "using terror as a means of persuasion".

I think this is an excellent description of terrorism. It doesn't really matter if the terrorist is from a foriegn country, or home grown right in your own back yard. Anyone who uses terrorism as a means of persuasion should qualify. I don't think we overuse the word. Not sure we use it enough, and since our current comander and chief has his own religious convictions, I'm sure he will attempt to tone down the use of the word as much as he can get away with. After all, those are his values too.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

This on is a bit scary, but sadly, true. See, the thing is, the actual terrorists think they are the ones frighting for the greater good. Wether it is for their religous beliefs or whatever personal convictions they may hold. And not only human kind. Recently a woman was murdered by an animal rights freak because he didn't think she took good enough care of the mice in the labratory where they worked. So that low life peice of (&(&^() killed a fellow human over a damn mouse. Now there's sick for you. But animal right freaks are just as much terrorists as any muslem sucicide bomber.

Terrorists do horrible things; level buildings, bomb places of worship, plant car bombs and subvert normal activities.

Yes, that we agree on completely. My problem with terrorists is that they attack innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the supposed problems the terrorist percieve as an affront to their beliefs.

Terrorism is the ultimate insensitive word; for the reason that it means to incite war. Could more be achieved with understanding and tolerance, and how?

I really don't think so. For example you could no more convince a muslim that killing infidels is NOT ok than you could convince me that rats and mice are equal to humans. It's ingrained into our belef structure and there is not likely to be any change. In some cases some tolerance could be found, a common ground, but not many are ever going to give up on their core beliefs, and if those beliefs include a no tolerance policy, I'm afraid it's a pretty hopeless idea.

[iGuest 3]

Hello.

It is my opinion that calling someone a terrorist is dehumanizing shorthand for a number of more specific things you can call a war criminal.  It shows an disadvantageous focus on fear on our part, blames the person not for their actions but the effects of their actions, and moreover it blurs the actual identity of your enemy, which is not good for the actual battle.

That is my opinion.

"For example you could no more convince a muslim that killing infidels is NOT ok than you could convince me that rats and mice are equal to humans."

You probably don't want this shoved down your throat - but that's a little racist. It's "radical muslim" or "jihadist", not "muslim".  Islam as a religion is not wholly devoted to destroying America.  There is a faction spread through mosques devoted to jihad, and that recieves opposition from the rest of Islam.

[sheepdog 10]

Hummm......this statement is a bit puzzling to me, "Islam as a religion is not wholly devoted to destroying America." So....are they just partially committed to destroying us? Or is it just the jihadist and the radical muslims that want us dead? What is the viewpoint of non radical muslims towards us infidels? When they take over the USA, are they going to expect me to walk around with my face covered? Or will they be tolerant of my views? What is the differance in the tolerance levels of the jihadist and the non radical muslim? There are many different varieties in the Christian religion, Methodist, Baptist, all have slightly different beliefs, but the core values of the religion are still the same. I suspect there is also not truely much difference between the factions of the Muslim groups. The point of terrourisim is to put fear into us, so focusing on that fear is the expected result of terrorisim. Calling it war crimes implys that the perpatrators are fighting in a legitimate declared battle, and they are doing the bidding of their commanders, but acts of war should be limited to actual declared war, and be between armies, not vicious attacks on the innocent civilian population, as it is with terrorisim.

[inverse_bloom 0]

Thats a good point, strategically formed attacks on civilians isn't war. War is two opposing sides fighting for the resolve of an issue in power. There is a sharp distinction between how both games are played out. After saying that though, it is important to draw attention to where these radical Muslims get some of their guns from. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't American gun companies made profit in the last 2 or so decades while these people have been turning their guns on each other?I would suspect "that" barely scratches the surface when it comes to the corruption involved, but it is important to mention it because everyone should realize America (or at the very least American gun companies) aren't totally innocent in these matters.

Edited December 4, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[andresf91 0]

I think this is an excellent description of terrorism. It doesn't really matter if the terrorist is from a foriegn country, or home grown right in your own back yard. Anyone who uses terrorism as a means of persuasion should qualify. I don't think we overuse the word. Not sure we use it enough, and since our current comander and chief has his own religious convictions, I'm sure he will attempt to tone down the use of the word as much as he can get away with. After all, those are his values too.

If that is the description you accept of terrorism... then the biggest terrorist is the U.S. Gov.

You can't deny history: Monroe Doctrine of intervention in their "private yard" (read Latin America). We had here as many coups d'etat as the USA agencies could throw, and whenever a national, popular or democratic project arose to power in one of our countries, it was cut down by the roots, whether by killing the leaders or directly training their Armed Forces to use terror against the people, killing students in the streets, kidnapping, torturing and raping people just because they thought differently.

 

So, from a historical point of view, the word terrorist is not associated with fundamentalists. It was a word used by the statu quo to name their enemies.

Those young students who once where in the streets protesting against the rise cost of living, to keep the University autonomous from the government, the keep the Army out of the schools and colleges, those who could escape and those who couldn't; they all were called terrorists in my country. But they didn't use terror; people weren't afraid of them. They were afraid of the "gorillas" who were torturing, raping and killing their sons and daughters.

Edited December 4, 2009 by andresf91 (see edit history)

[sheepdog 10]

I guess I am somehow missing your point on this one. The United States does manufactor guns, but so soes Russia, China, and probably every other country on the earth. I seriously doubt that if the United States was to stop manufactoring guns all of a sudden we would start to have peace on earth, goodwill towards men. I just don't see the connection between American gun makers and idiots who strap bundles of dynamite to their bodies in an effort to kill innocent people that happen to be standing close to them. I have an imagination, guess it's not that good to stretch that far though. Besides, the pentagon and the twin towers were attacked with Jet Airplanes. Maybe if we stop manufactoring planes we could have world peace????I have been hearing lots of hype in recent months were the media is coming down on American gun manufactors. Even court cases, your basic frivolous law suits, where families of people who have been killed by guns have tried to sue the gun makers. Fortunatly, these have been throw out of court, but you do hear a lot from the media about how the gun makers are now catching the blame for the drug wars in Mexico, and anything else the liberal media can dream up. Personally, I think it's just a way of pushing for more gun control and the eventual goal of removing our guns. And as you may be able to guess, I'm one of those that "they will get my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from it's trigger!"

[inverse_bloom 0]

There surely wouldn't be peace in Afghanistan if Americans stopped supplying guns, the radical groups do have other sources to obtain guns from (Russia comes to mind for me). The Afghani's have the reputation of being a violent society and nothing will change that soon.

But i don't think many people are aware how much America toyed around with the business of supplying guns to radical groups in the middle east leading up to 9/11. (those actions are partially what brought bitterness towards the U.S)

I'm not sure, i cant remember exactly what was happening, it could have involved the CIA in some way? Anyway, a heck of a lot of money was made for a period of about 1-2 decades prior.

Regarding gun control in America, well i cant really speak for that because i know Americans like certain liberties. But in Australia (i think the late 80's) they introduced strict laws for gun ownership, i remember because as a kid my dad retrieved a rifle out of the man hole in the ceiling and explained that he had to relinquish it.

Anyway the result of those strict laws where less murders in Australia due to very tight gun control. Sorry i have to disagree with you there. If guns aren't used on farms or in the wilderness or for the military, i have a hard time believing they have any value to society. I'd rather have people bludgeon each other if violence is the only way they can see to resolve an issue. 

Although i couldn't find any links which explain how guns travel into the hands of terrorists (in the middle east for example) in this link it explains in 10 or so paragraphs preceding its bibliography how the U.S distributed its guns according to their foreign policy at the time.

http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-industry-1

It notes periods of time where weapons supplied were indiscriminately offered to foreign countries (to a certain degree). In this link it describes how a careless situation lead to weapons being led into the wrong hands.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Edited December 4, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[shadowx 0]

See, the thing is, the actual terrorists think they are the ones frighting for the greater good

The US government (and to an extent the UK, which is where i live) ARE terrorists. There is no doubt about this. They are just as bad as the people they are fighting. YOU, an American citizen (i think) fall into the statement i have quoted above. You think *you* are the good guys, and they are bad. This is propaganda.

Osama Bin Laden was armed by the US government, way back before 9/11, years and years earlier the US government sold him all his weapons and possibly even trained him and his merry men. Fact.

I Expect the US government also supplied Saddam with means of control and weaponry. Strange how after the UK and US "secured" the countries of Afghanistan/Iraq they then welcomed oil companies to bid. But then that's just me being silly, as if the UK and US governments would lie and steal *laughs* silly, silly me...

LIES!

The war in Iraq/Afghanistan was due to two things. Humiliation and MONEY! The US were humiliated that the people they once supported, sold guns to, trained and advised could strike at their heart. ASHAMED that their security was weak, just like pearl harbour. They had to do something to save face. This is a fact and is being revealed in the Iraq enquiry in the UK right now.

Sure, bad people are being killed, but tally up the number of innocents murdered by our troops (now, before you bash me over this i dont blame the troops for the war they are engaged in, as individuals i support them. However i do not support the war. Many of those soldiers dont either but they have no choice. It is barbaric)

Dont give me all this crap about us being the good guys, we arent. The UK has no place in this war and i cant condemn what the enemy are doing abroad. I do however strongly condemn the war on innocents in any country. They should focus their efforts on fighting the troops and not killing innocents.

At the end of the day think of the terrible things America has done to the world (and other countries but lets focus on the US) there are many countries that have full right to march into america and try to take over, and if enemy troops arrivbed in your garden you'd blow them up with improvised bombs, throw stuff at them, use any gun you could find, crossbows anything. And that is what they are doing in Iraq/Afghanistan. I cant agree with either side in the war. I dont associate myself with either army and i do not feel represented by them.

This isnt my war, but I will not have people blindly following lies believing they are doing the right thing. Saddam had no WMDs, they probably only hung him to keep him quiet.

Oh, and concentration camps from the World Wars? a UK/US invention. NOT a nazi idea. They just took the idea away from us.

We arent the angels in the world. We are just another demon.

[rob86 2]

The US government (and to an extent the UK, which is where i live) ARE terrorists. There is no doubt about this. They are just as bad as the people they are fighting. YOU, an American citizen (i think) fall into the statement i have quoted above. You think *you* are the good guys, and they are bad. This is propaganda.

This is absolutely true. I had an American friend who very Republican, pro-war, Christian, who started a US Republican chat forum. I used to visit there once in a while, the conversation there was sickening. Ever since 9/11, there has been non-stop insulting of muslims (ALL muslims), boasting of USA's greatness and right to kill 1000 innocent muslims if it saves one american soldier, they talk about killing gays, they throw insulting racist words around like it's nothing, they talk about how wonderful it'd be to deport all non-whites or black people, how "God" would never agree with Islam, but definitely supports what the US is doing and everything you'd imagine some violent radical group would think of. They repeatedly talk of how cowardly and despicable and cowardly a suicide car bomber is, while their brave heroes who drop bombs from the sky and drive in armored tanks receive accolades of praise for their heroism. What do they expect the Jihadists to do? Buy a modern air force to duke it out with them? It's bloody well obvious if you corner a poor fanatical group like this they'll fight back however they can! They also insulted me every time I made an appearance only because I was Canadian, and in their opinion, I wasn't up to their "US" standards. No wonder the world dislikes America! The only difference between these people and the radical muslims you see waving guns in propaganda there is is that these Americans hide their radical beliefs in jokes or political blathering and pretend it's intelligent political debate and not radical racism. I once questioned them about the war, and they honestly believe they are on the side of Good, with God's blessing, while muslims are on the side of Evil, and should be wiped out. They used _these_ words. Sound like a terrorist group to anyone else? This friend of mine used to be a decent, normal person, before they became interested in politics. Now they're a ranting, raving fanatical lunatic I avoid like the plague.

I met a whole bunch of muslims in my life, and contrary to popular belief here in N.A., not one of them were violent, or racist towards me, nobody whipped out a bomb, and they all had relatively good humor about the stereotypes. That's more than I can say for that group of the Americans.

It makes me sick to my stomach to watch this group of Americans trash talk the entire world, so high up in the clouds they are oblivious to reality. Something is corrupting these people, there is no doubt about it in my mind. I don't know if it's propaganda, or religion or what, but it's highly disturbing. On the outside, people can see that American's (represented by their elected Govt) are just as much of a terrorist group as the 'terrorists'.

I don't think what the Jihadists are doing is right, and I don't think what the Americans are doing as right. I think anyone who thinks either side is on some holy mission for the side of Goodness is a bit touched in the head. I have to try to remember that all American's are not ignorant fools like that, I know in reality that there are some great Americans, many on this forum even.

So is the word "Terrorist" used too loosely? It's certainly thrown a lot, but the modern definition these days seems to be tightening up to simply mean "Muslim". Can't be too broad of a description, or some naive Americans might clue in to the fact that "Hey, wait a second, don't we fit under this definition?"..

Terrorist: (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)

Remember Robepierre, and his Reign of Terror? He wasn't a radical muslim, organizing with terror cells. He was however a person who used terror as a political weapon. You can see the modern definition is changing...

[andresf91 0]

We arent the angels in the world. We are just another demon.

I can agree with you, but only up to a point.
You see, there are no angels or demons, savers or anything as idealistic as that.
There are interests. And in my honest opinion, violence is not an option unless it defends People's interests (that is, People, not some people's interests).
With people, I mean working and middle classes (and petite and national bourgeoisie in the Third World) defending their common interests opposite oligarchy's.