Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
The_Jazz: According to your definition, only non-state actors can carry out terrorism; but because of the moral connotations that are (for better or worse) inescapably attached to the word, I feel we must define terrorism as a particular kind of violence rather than violence coming from a particular person or type of people. I think you would agree that the former method is far more precise and objective.
|
Isn't the "kind of" violence being perpetrated virtually irrelevant to the definition? After all, an American pilot who drops a bomb on the same spot that a terrorist/freedom fighter sets off a bomb gets the exact same results and the same people die. The actor is the only variable in the ensuing explosion and people are still dead. The pilot may have committed a war crime or simply followed orders, but the terrorist, being an official noncombatant but a de facto soldier, answers to no hierarchy for his actions and may have been acting alone or under direction of a larger body. I have to disagree with your method since it doesn't take into account anyone's politics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
It's a word who's meaning hasn't been fear-mongered into me. It all seems quite clear and not that complicated. Religious zealots of the Islamic persuasion, tantamount to those that would have quiet time in American public schools for prayer if one would be so inclined, are to poor to fight a real war so they use any and all means necessary to scare the populous. ANY AND ALL MEANS.<----Terrorism in a nutshell.
For whatever reason the leftists of the western world, sheltered in their educational institutions and unwittingly duped by their tendancy to think too much (source: read posts 1-19 of this thread)...okay so maybe i'm going overboard, but christ if at this point you (and by that I mean what is apparently the left in this country) really can't figure out who the terrorists are thank god your not running the country.
One final thought....with all of the education and thoughtfullness floating around in this thread over the meaning of one single word, you really can't come up with any other alternatives for why better than half of the populous in this country agree on the definition of terrorism other than "bush propaganda and fear mongering". Can we start debating the meaning of "idealogy"?
|
There's so much wrong here that I'm not even sure where to start. Surprisingly (to me at least), that once I get past the surrounding churlishness of your post, I agree with your definition son long as you accept that the definition is in no way limited to Islamists. After all, the second worst terrorist attack on US soil was perpetrated by someone of your ilk, the American right. While you may reject his actions, he certainly sprang from the wellhead of your political camp.
By the way, since I apparently think too much I'll ask you to go back and reread posts 1-19, which weren't about trying to figure out who the terrorists are (look out, they're gonna getcha!) but rather who they aren't. We all know and accept that the vast majority of Islamists hate the US (I'm purposefully leaving myself some wiggle room in case there are a couple that somehow don't), but to limit the "terrorist" label to the Islamists is absolutely moronic. I can think of at least 6 active terrorist attacks in the last 10 years that had absolutely nothing to do with Islamists. Maybe if you and the rest of the neocons weren't so hellbent on transforming the old addage of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater into screaming "terrorist", maybe the rest of us could actually try to solve the issues.
By the way, to even suggest that the 2004 election was a single-issue referendum is so absolutely laughable that I have to wonder if you were actually in the country for any of that year. If you're going to try to stand by that statement, then I would respectfully suggest that you go back and review the transcripts of the debates and pay particular attention to all the domestic issues that were discussed.