Semantic Exercise
 

There has been disagreement here in the past over a term used for the individuals involved in the events listed below. The term "terrorist" has been described by some as unfair, misleading, and plain inaccurate. I am wondering how others here would identify these folks - how they would describe them in a sentence, for example.

In 3 words or less, what term would you use to describe the individuals responsible for the following events:

1) Madrid Train Bombings 2004 (192 killed, 2,050 injured)
2) Bali Nightclub Bombings 2002 (202 killed, 209 injured)
3) London Subway Bombings 2005 (56 killed, 700 injured)
4) Egyptian Hotel Bombings 2005 (88 dead, 150+ injured)
5) Beslan, Russia School Hostage Situation 2004 (344 killed, hundreds wounded)
6) Istnabul Bank/Consulate Bombings 2004 (27 killed, 450+ injured)
7) Turkey Synagogue Bombings 2003 (23 killed, 300 injured)
8) Casablanca Suicide Bombings 2003 (45 killed, 100+ injured)
9) Saudi Arabia Housing Complex Bombings 2004 (34 killed, 200+ injured)
10) Amman Jordan Hotel Bombings 2005 (60 killed, 115 injured)

Please, no long arguments. Keep it under 3 words for the sake of the experiment please. Thanks.

I reject the entire experiment as reductionist and silly.

The PROBLEM with those who want to use "terrorist" as a label to mean "those who oppose our hegemony" is that they seem to want to describe the whole fricking world in three words or less.

Things aren't that cut and dried. Ever. EVER. Life doesn't HAVE blacks and whites. EVERYTHING is grey.

Wow. Just wow. Give me a freakin break.

Thank you for articulating what I could not at this moment.

Can't call a terrorist a terrorist?

The Chinese oppose our hegemony and we don't call them terrorists now do we.
The Russians, hell even the French wish their part of the world power pie, and again we don't call them terrorists.

NO shade of grey here, THOSE ACTS, EVERY LAST ONE WAS DONE BY A TERRORIST OR TERRORISTS.

To use your words I find this 'telling' and quite honnestly frightening.

You know what? Yes. Those actions were terrorist attacks.

Again, the problem some are having here is that the meaning of the word terrorist has been so bruised and beaten that to label these as terrorist actions suggests that those doing the labelling must fall into the same old tired "good vs. evil", "with us or against us" binary oppositions that control the terrorist discourse at present.

I refuse to look at it as black and white. There is always more to it than that.

The OP verges on (but stays just shy of) being a troll.

If they're terrorists, then so is the every POTUS for the last 26 years. Terrorist is a blanket term that's lost all meaning. I could call trick or treaters terrorists (they scare people in order to control their candy supplies). I could call Fear Factor a terrorist show, because it scares people for ratings.

Fair enough - you have expressed the notion that you would not call them terrorists.

Yet, what WOULD you call them?
Firemen? Minutemen? Bakers? Florists? Lawyers? Thugs?

Is there a corresponding word in the English language to accurately describe these folks?

that's not what roachboy means when he tries to explain that "terror" or "terrorism" is a category that we fill in our heads and then try to talk to one another about.

what it might mean objectively and what we might mean by the categories subjectively won't always line up. there's something about "slippage" that might be applied, but I'm typing this fast and can't call up all my limited trainging in this area. you can look that up while waiting for him to come clarify, as I'm guessing he will. or maybe this thread has nothing to do with roachboy's comments on this subject, but he's the primary person I see objecting to the meaningfulness of these types of terms as accurate.

I agree that all of the listed attacks are terrorists, but that's what you get when you use extreme examples. This is still a "silly exercise" since we're using a list that's obviously skewed towards one viewpoint. That's why I didn't bother to post anything before.

If you want to start a real dialogue on what constitutes terrorism versus freedom fighting, revolution, etc. you need to find better examples besides gross examples of Islamist attacks.

If you want to discuss the Boston Tea Party, the IRA attacks on London, bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars, the World Church of the Creator attacks or the destruction of Indian mosques by Hindi extremists, I'll be more than happy to do so, but the way that the question is posed is an exercise in futility.

I'd call most of them bombers, and 5) I'd call hostage takers.

I know your perspective won't allow you to see this which is why you think its troll like, but the OP's post has really opened my eyes as to why politics is so much pissing in the wind as of late.

If you can't call a terrorist a terrorist without hand wringing about the term, how the hell can we talk about the best policy to deal with terrorists when apparently we don't have any terrorists.

Shades of grey my lilly white, you bomb a school, you blow up a disco, you destroy a hotel, you are a terrorist. No 'abuse' of the word changes that.

Murderers to all, and 5 I would call sociopathic cowards, killing school children as a shade of grey eh. Wow.

Powerclown,

From your requirements, it really looks as if you're just trying to paint people into a corner where they have to type the word "terrorist". It is hard to see that you posted this with any other possible outcome in mind.

If this is in fact what you were intending, I'm curious as to what you thought it would accomplish - just getting people to admit that the word terrorist can be used appropriately? I'm not sure this will acomplish much. The word terrorist is a category or type of person, as coin is a type of object. A terrorist could be trying to accomplish all sorts of objectives (which have varying degrees of legitimacy), and that is the point that people who reject that label have been trying to make. Frankly, the word only conveys a couple of things - first, that the individual or group in question is separate from whoever the name-caller is (as I've never seen anyone label themself as a terrorist), and that in most cases the people in question do not act on the behalf of a recognized government. Even the second part is coming into question with the current focus on "terrorist regimes" - which is a bit of an oxymoron. I see it as an attempt to paint nations who don't do what we like with the bad associations that come with the word "terrorist".

So, Powerclown, I'd like to ask you if your point was to make people use the word terrorist as a descriptor. If so, what does this accomplish? If not, what exactly were you getting at, because I think most of us missed the point.

I appreciate that. I put the question in stark terms because it's whats been going on in the world...it isn't talk, or speculation or 2nd hand heresay...these are real-world events that all occurred in a relatively short time span.

Furthermore, I realize there are those here who feel strongly against using the term terrorist, so maybe these same people would choose to use this "exercise" as a means of clarifying their viewpoint. I would call the above folks terrorists because I wouldn't know what else to call them. Maybe there is a better, more accurate word that society might choose to call these folks.

Also, I wonder what ordinary people around the world refer to these folks as, whether they are irish, french, japanese, arab, finnish, icelandic, venezuelan, austrian, laotian, south african etc.

Can someone on the left call these people who did this terrorists and make me feel the world isn't insane?

What corner are you so afraid of entering?

Calling a terrorist a terrorist doesn't mean you have to agree on how to deal with the problem but it is the first step in figuring out what the problem is.

Well, yes actually it does. 'Terrorist' was not always a blanket term, just as 'conservative' wasn't always interchangable with 'republican'. Words change because of their use, whether how it's used (it's meaning), or how often it's used (let's use the word terrorist from now on to describe people we don't like).

I think that I qualify as more of a centerist than a leftist, and I've already made my opinion clear. However the Russian historian in me needs to point out that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were all "terrorists" under the Russian Empire definition prior to their excerise in "regime change" in 1917. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Hence my problem with the OP.

I'm curious, Powerclown, what would you call the jayhawkers? They killed many people, some who had no fight in the slavery issue, to try to intimidate the state of Kansas into becoming a free state. They stole, they murdered indisciminately, all in the name of abolishing slavery in the U.S.

And now, a major university uses their name as a mascot.

Were they terrorists?

I think what Powerclown is trying to prove is that there are two sides to every story. One persons terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It's only because we were/are on the recieving end of it that we term it terrorist.

In other words, if you can't fight an army directly because of overwhelming superior technology, then you fight a guerrilla war. If your enemy has big tanks and you have a pickup truck... then you don't stand there and fight.

Now... I'm not justifying the killing of school children, but the desparate do desparate things. It's easy to sit here and say that they are evil and deserve to be killed while we sit behind our compters in our air conditioned offices, grow fat off of fast food and the depressed economies of the world.

Has it ever occured to you that we might be considered terrorists in some of the nations that we have conqured? How many covert operations has the US run that has toppled governments? What gives us the right to meddle in the workings of other nations, and then when they fight back... we call them terrorists?

Does that hit the mark, Powderclown?

Because they do things like TARGET a school or a Mosque, thats why we call them terrorists.

This isn't a mistake, this isn't a side effect of war, it is a DELIBERATE TARGETING OF CIVILIANS. It has no comparison to a navy seal covert ops.

Why is this so hard to say?

Oops! You mean that the terrorists in Iraq right now AREN'T TERRORISTS?!

sure, I'll play.

I'll take "violent" for a 1000, Alex.

i think one of the problems with this distinction, particularly with respect to currrent discussion, is that a decision to deliberatly target citizens can be, and often is, virtually the same as the indiscriminant, yet accidental, murder of civilians, in terms of practical outcomes.

Since some have actually taken this trolling thread seriously, yes they are terrorists. BFD.

the issue isn't whether or not those actions were perpetrated by terrorists. in all reality, no one's going to argue that those weren't acts of terrorism (which there for makes those who commited them terrorists). the problem is that the list of events given are nicely cherry picked.

why not just start a conversation about the failings of the public school system by looking at a list of inner city publics (detroit for example) and ignoring any that are doing well?

if you want the actual argument that i laid out, look at the other thread:
"what are we to do about terrorism"....

Indeed... that is true. All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story, and it's extreamly hard to imagine what it must be like to be on the other side.

Sometimes it takes some pretty extreme acts in order to get the attention you think you deserve. Often times, the attention you do get is a bunch of special ops coming in to kill you... but oh well, right?

We blow up plenty of shit, fully knowing that there will be innocent people there.

Exactly... we are no better then they are... we just have better PR :hmm:

No, even that isn't that simple. We'll toss missiles at a supposedly legit target, even if we know that civilians are close enough to be killed as collateral damage, or as a result of an errant missile. It's an acceptable risk for us because we think it's more important to get the target, innocents be damned. Innocent people will be THE target of the terrorist attacks.

What the terrorist does is definitely worse but it's still shades of grey. I don't think our President and generals are losing too much sleep over it.

To your first point: I don't think I am painting anyone into a corner. The events are real events that actually took place. I understand that some people don't see these folks as terrorists...fine, so if they are not terrorists what are they? (I see that some have called them bombers, sociopaths, violent, so far...)

Your coin analogy is interesting...which brings up a question: if people truly believe that these folks have legitimate interests, why all the fuss over what they're called? Go ahead and call them heroes if thats what you think they are.

I'm not so sure it's a bad thing to separate oneself from folk motivated to commit violence and single them out as the "other", because then doesn't morality become moot, concepts of right and wrong vanish? I think some people worry that, taken to the extreme, the singling out of certain people automatically leads to Bad Things. I don't think it necessarily so. I see this as an issue that needs to be considered not only by those who would judge these events, but by the perpetrators as well as their communities.

Last point: I find it curious that you think, in your final paragraph, the events I mentioned necessitate one to choose the term "terrorist" by default. Of course, I'm not making people say anything. I'd like people to think of this as a cultural inkblot experiment. I made it clear in my opening thread that one is free to label these men whatever they want to, and I expected answers other than 'terrorist'. So I'm not sure why you would say I am forcing people to use the word if they truly don't believe it fits the situation.

I can't speak to the issue as I know next to nothing about that particular situation.
I simply couldn't give you a honest answer at this point.

As regards those instances I mentioned in the opening post, I understand that people in certain areas of the world (near and far) celebrate anytime a western nation (or western ally) gets hit, but I'm not one of those who applaud or empathize along with them.

Well what about the UN sanctions over Iraq? You know sanctions won't actually hurt Saddam, but they did manage to claim the lives of a half a million Iraqi children, all of whome are obviously innocent civilians. Not only did we not lose sleep over it, but we caluously bombed them and managed to kill even more civilians by mistake. While I do agree that there is a difference between killing civilians deliberatly and killing them because of neglagence....then end result is the same: innocent people are dead, and everyone else is scared of us because of what we did. That is terrorism.

Right.

Let's not forget who put Saddam into power.

Who trained the Taliban and Osama to get the Russians out of Afganistan?

Perhaps, if we did not meddle in the affiars of other countries so much then they would not hate us like they do. I don't know. I am not them, so I can't really say.

What I do know is that people with power will do anything to keep that power. And the lives of a few innocents is little consequence when it comes to world domination.

I've gotten off topic, so I appologize.

Do I think they are terrorists? Yes, I would have to say they are. Do I empathize with them? No... they kill innocents people that have nothing to do with what ever grievence they wish to illuminate. Do I think they have a good reason for what they are doing? Yeah... I would think they do.

Not sure the point anymore... so I'm gonna just shut up now ;)

I believe I did that in post #6.

Terrorism is a STRATEGY, not a political stance. Frankly, a lot of the fearmongering the right has been engaged in over the last several years has bordered on terrorism. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

"War on Terror". Jesus Christ. Terror is an emotion. You might as well declare war on envy.

I call TROLL on this entire thread.

BINGO! ratbastid wins the "best post of the thread". How true, how very true. You can't fight a war on terrorism anymore than you can fight a war on a quarterback sneak. It's absurd.

Never mind.

I disqualify your remark on the grounds that the Boston Tea Party was prior to the Bush administration, and therefore, irrelevant to political discourse. We don't need to see this "tired old strategy" anymore.

Uh hunh. But reductio ad absurdum, we can't get enough of, apparently.

ratbastid, do you have a word for those who took part in the aformentioned events in the OP?

No, I told you, I reject the whole enterprise on the grounds that it's absurdly simplistic. There IS no one word that defines such a broad range of motivations and agendas. If you're looking for me to label them "terrorists", then I'll say this: they used terrorism as their technique for attempting to achive their various political ends.

The current political climate, in which it's American And Her Allies, versus The Terrorists is ridiculously simple-minded, and I won't buy into it.

I counter with this: are you willing to edit your OP to include the Boston Tea Party?

I'm not sure I agee with your characterization of the above events as representing a "broad range of motivations and agendas", I actually think it's a quite narrow range/agenda, but thats probably for another thread...as is the issue of the Boston Tea Party, the JayHawkers, the War on Terror (ridiculous phrase), Saddam Hussein and other side issues. I started this thread simply to see how people identify those responsible for the specific events of the 21st century.

To repeat: I'm not "looking" for you or anyone to use the label of terrorist if you do not feel that they are such.

How about this:
The people in the OP were all politically or ideologically motivated to the point of doing truely inhuman things. They are people who have, for one reason or another, lost all perspective. Do you know where it stems from? Entitlement. Every evil that man does in thsi world comes from a little voice in your head that says, "You have the right to do this", for whatever reason. The people in the OP were entitled to do what they did, and that seems a good place to start.

Would you be able to condense that explanation (a strong one imo) into a term of your choosing?
These people who you describe as: "politically or ideologically motivated", having "lost all perspective"...is it possible for you to describe them in 3 words or less?

I see no problem in referring to those responsible for the acts mentioned in the OP as "terrorists." Seems pretty cut and dry to me. So, now, what is your point?

If I were subjected to the violence and destruction in any one of these situations, I have no problem admitting I would be afraid....likely terrified. Thus....due to the politics underlying the actions of those commiting these crimes, I would easily term them terrorists.
If I was a member of the group that was responsible for the terror, I would likely call myself something else, but from my perspective they are terrorists.

And what would YOU call them as you are neither a victim or a member of said group?

ok, so maybe i will play here for a minute:

consider the shift in context from the "what should 'we" do about terrorism?" thread to this (disengenously titled, but no matter) "a semantic exercize"...

in the previous thread, the frame established a sequences of usages:

the category "terrorist" was implicitly taken as adequate as a descriptor for:

1. particular types of actions in themselves

2. the actors/agents who carry out this type of action

[[at this level, the relation involved is circular: if the action is "terrorism" then the agent is a "terrorist"]]

there are also level shifts:

3. as a term that designates a particular kind of agent in the world

[[that is, as a term that designates not only the agents directly involved in a given act at the moment that act happens, but which is amaenable to generalization--in this case, adequate as a descriptor of the agents or potential agents who would carry out or are seen as potentially carrying out a type of action classed "terrorism"----or any other action--because the definition has now moved from situational to substantive. notice that the logic has changed here from induction to deduction as well--induction would derive the classification of the agent from the classification of a particular action: deduction would derive the classification of an action from the prior classification of the agent]]

so

4.as a term that would designate any action carried out by agents described/understood as "terrorist"

[[consequence of shifting from situational to substantive attribution--i am not being totally consistent terminologically, but you get the idea)]]

5. a category that---therefore----would function to orient strategic thinking coherently....[[which you can already see, if you think about, is a real problem logically from the sequences of meanings outlined above--this says nothing about the ideological content of those meanings--but for the moment, you dont need that level of critique to see the problem]]

6. as a direct object in a question involving action, presumably---so the question directs people to assume coherence, assme strategy and to derive scenarios concerning types of action.

by the time you get to 6, i would think that the problems of coherence strategically, that is of orienting action, should be obvious.
the usage simply tracks the possible usages of a noun "terrorism"--we get to watch it migrate from the result of an induction to an orientation for deduction.

at least the other thread had the advantage of posing the whoel range of problems with the usage of this term in the present ideological context. most of what i see the right doing is skipping across these various levels of meaning without seeming to be aware that they are doing it.


the other dimension of the posts i put up in the other thread had to do with the ideological content/meanings bundled together under the aegis of this signifier in this sorry time period. to really see what is at issue in this, you'd have to add information about the--very problematic--contents given to this signifier--most germaine in this context is the ways in which the term "terrorist" is used to strip away any possibility of thinking in terms of motives/causes--along with that vanishes any hope of thinking in specific ways about the adversary, if you like. there is a fairly detailed outline of this level of problems in the other thread.



the op tries to counter these critiques by shifting the register in which the category "terrorist" is to be approached.

in this case, all the op does is to present a list of actions from the past and poses a descriptive question.
that is, what do these actions have in common?

presumably the hope was to restabilize the term by reverting to the first two levels that were implicit in the other thread's framing question (what should "we" do about "terrorism"?)

as such, the op is geared toward a simple recapitulation of the process of generalization i outlined above.

so it is without interest.

that you have not thought carefully about the problem you pose, powerclown, does not make it less a problem.

but it must be a pain in the ass to find yourself trying to defend the usage of
such weak, vague terminology---particularly terminology that has been demonstrated as worthless across the actions that this administration has undertaken framed by it.
you might wonder if it is worth the effort.

Interesting...cut & dry...
The point of this exercise was akin to an inkblot psychological evaluation - introduce a subject and ask people to express their thoughts about it.

What I find surprising here is that the majority of people perceive the same exact thing and even label it with the same word.
This wasn't a foregone conclusion, to my mind.

Another for "terrorist".
Thanks tecoyah...silver star to you, as #5 went 4 words. ;)

Sorry roachboy, you went 697 words too far, and without a descriptive term.
No prize this time...but thanks for your comments.

Terrorists, all.

I say this because they use terror as their means to an end. However, I stand by my opinion that this category "terrorist" has simultaneously become so large and so loaded that using the term doesn't really communicate too much anymore other than a visceral sense of hostility, otherness, and contempt.

I think that vagueness is why we often have threads ending up trying to discuss terrorists' motives and means and motivations. The label itself ignores all of that and is pretty useless as a result.

I notice that you only chose to cite attacks on civilians committed by Muslims.

What words might someone use to describe the perpetrators? Here's a list - pick which ever ones you like best depending on your point of view:
First the nouns:
Bombers, (hostage-takers), militants, extremists, freedom-fighters, martyrs, terrorists, criminals, Muslims, Arabs, Sand Niggers, Towel Heads, murderers, victims, heroes, losers, etc…
Then the adjectives:
pitiable, worthless, dangerous, fanatical, Muslim, glorious, brave, questionable, vile, despicable, filthy, desperate, principled, murderous, unprincipled, organised, disorganised, etc…

If this is purely a semantic exercise, what's it doing in Politics? Do you have a theory you'd like to expound for us? What's your point?

Which word would I use? It would of course depend on the context. I'd probably avoid the racist nouns myself, and I'd pick my adjectives depending on what it was I was trying to say about them.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to think I had more than a one-word vocabulary.

"Thus....due to the politics underlying the actions of those commiting these crimes, I would easily term them terrorists"


While I do understand you might feel the need to rebutt virtually everything I post Ustwo, I would ask that you at least read, and try to comprehend what it is I have typed. Your personal dislike for me is irrelevant to the topic, and serves no purpose in furthering this discussion.

Well since 'assholes' is too vague, I'll have to go with "bombers" for most of them, and "randsomers" for number 5, I believe it was.

if and would

Seems a bit waffling to me but I did not get the last line which was

That part I missed and I was wrong on.

powerclown:

so your thread is not a semantic exercize at all then.
this is evident because you cannot take seriously even the most basic analysis of how meanings are shifted across a sequence of usages, even within a single question.

so i dont know what you are doing in this thread.
it seems to have no point at all.

I would think the point is obvious....it is an attempt to debase those who differ in opinion on the meaning , and overuse of the term "terrorist, as well as an opportunity for those of a particular political leaning to poke at others who disagree with this leaning. Often called a "Troll" in the internet realm, it is a means to pretend discussion with the intent of listening to yourself talk, and through manipulation of the dialogue place your opponent in a position of anger, and overreaction.
Sometimes used as a technique in valid debate, Trolling has a developed history and has become a mainstay of those who have little else to discuss, for whatever reason. Through the years many approaches have been used to quell the use of trolling on the internet, most to little avail, though the most effective to date has been simply pointing out the troll for what it is, and allowing the person who posted to feel a fool for doing so in the first place.
I have found this approach superior to the use of deletion and reprimand.

And I thought he did a wonderful job of showing just how deep the devide is between the left and the right on this issue.

Shades of grey and all that :rolleyes:

But often any right wing idea posted as such is viewed as trolling on this board I'm pretty numb to the accusations made.

Don't worry, there's plenty of left wing trolling too. But this thread is definitely a right wing roll.

I don't know about you but I like my right wing rolls with butter...

I prefer my right wings in bbq sauce, and then add the role, but I digress.

Powerclown, what is the meaning of the thread?

I enjoy my role with a side of sole, with liberal helpings of trole.

I don't know if there was a point to this thread, other than to see if the politics board members were (or weren't) on the same page as to how we view those individuals who carry out the above acts. It's no secret here that I have a conservative take on the matter of how they percieve the individuals involved in terrorism. At times, I wonder what some people on the left are thinking when they express their thoughts on the matter...the ideas seem so foreign and out there that I wonder to myself what has happened in this person's life to plant the seeds of such anger, frustration, rebellion, alienation, etc...Regarding the subject matter, someone here had a phrase that resonated with me: Calling a terrorist a terrorist doesn't mean you have to agree on how to deal with the problem but it is the first step in figuring out what the problem is. I find this question to be very reasonable and very pertinent. I understand that others will dismiss it entirely. I appreciate the input of those who had the candor to play by the rules and post their thoughts.

I don't agree at all (as I suppose is no surprise by now). The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning. Its only use is as a right-wing prop to bolster assaults against human rights and political freedoms.

Calling things what they really are CAN be the first step in figuring out what a problem is and what to do about it, but in THIS case, the word "terrorist" only serves to further obfuscate the situation, and to distance America and her allies from any responsibility in the world climate that produces terrorists.

That's what the word "terrorist" has devolved into--somebody with some sort of inborn pathological anti-American desire to hurt people. That's what we're being told. What we're not being reminded of is all the American training that Osama Bin Laden received when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, how much support and partnership Saddam Hussein received before the Iranian revolution. No, those are The Bad Guys in our little black and white cowboy movie version of international affairs. And as far as conventional wisdom goes, they were born bad guys.

I say it again: in life (and CERTAINLY in politics) there IS no black and white. EVERYTHING is grey.

I'd be REALLY interested in a discussion about why so-called terrorists do what they do. What Osama Bin Laden's reasons are for his actions (and it's NOT "because he hates freedom").

So...if I shorten it to "Fuckin' bastardass terrorists"....can I get gold?

Suck up...

I can't speak for the other 'liberals' on the board (I don't know what I am anymore; liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, socialist...so many damned labels, each a semantics thread unto themselves), but I have had a lot happen to me that made me change from a fun loving Bush supporter to die hard anti-Bush person.

1) Bush stole the election. Durring the 200 election, I was back and fourth between Gore and Bush (I was a much more simple political animal 6 years ago). I had been raised republican, but I was pissed about the Clinton sex scandal being blown out of proportion...so I was a Republicrat. I was content to stay this way until the 200 election was dependant on a state who happened to be governed by George W. Bush's brother, Jeb Bush. I knew that Florida was a swing state, due to the fact that the news networks had beaten into my brain for 2 months, but I figured it would simpy go Gore (due to popular vote). Then that mess abou the chads and the recount happened. I took it unpon myself to look into it. I satisfied myself that the election was obviously stolen. I lost my trust in Bush, the office of the president for the next 4 years, and the process by which we vote.

2) 9/11 Go check out the stuff I posted in Paranoia if you want to know about this. Bottom line, bad stuff happened, and my trust in the MSM and government are gone.

3) The war on terror. I've posted this to death, but the gist is this war disgusts me and has convinced me that there is an empire in the womb of this democracy, and we're starting to have contractions.

4) A bunch of other crap I don't feel like listing.

I don't have a seed of anger. I have dissapointment. I have the wool pulled from my eyes. I have a need to try and fix a problem. I would like to share my understandings with others.

Powerclown,

With your explanations, I personally don't see your OP as a troll. This is the kind of communicating I like to read - where we try to understand why people feel differently to the way that we do, especially when their views seem incomprehensible.

I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative these days. However, I do know that I'm one of the people who resists black-and-white and doesn't like labels like terrorism. I like to think about motivations for the people who do things that we call terrorism. For me this is not an expression of liberal or conservative values - it's just interacting with the world around me in a realistic way.

In my opinion, if we don't make an effort to understand the dynamics of terrorism, the war on terror is nothing more than trying to kill "them" faster than they kill us. A real "war on terror" would address the factors that motivate such a violent expression of anger/frustration/desparation/whatever so that we wouldn't be seeing more people popping up all the time.

As I said before, I just don't think the term terrorist is very useful in those terms. It's a word that really shuts all of that kind of thinking down - the way "communist" did in the 1950's. On the other hand I do see that there are lots of people who don't want to talk about that stuff. For these people it's way more "us vs. them". I see that, but I don't really grok it. If that's what your thread is about, I'm very interested in reading you thoughts and those of others who don't agree with me.

I don't see how his "explanation" elevated the thread above troll-esqe. My take on it was more of the same, more of the same insulting patterns of referring to various members on this board. According to powerclown,
Most of that sentence is peppered with irrational or perjorative terms. It appears to be an advantageous point wherein he can add some flamebait without being called on it; presumably because he wants to know what these people think.

The truth of the matter is that a number of members responded how they think...after violating the "rules" that were set up to restrict their responses (despite the claim he wants to know what is ticking in their minds). In any case, ratbastid and roachboy attempted to provide some meaty responses, responses that someone actually interested in understanding the thought processes behind opposition to the use of terrorism in certain contexts would have engaged with. Instead, they were and are ignored.

When I read his commentary, I see: I didn't really have a point to this thread other than to see whether these members I see as [strange, filled with hate, or perhaps crazy] would agree with me that x,y, and z are acts of terrorism.

If you fit outside the caricature powerclown is trying to draw, then it seems like a valid point. If you are intended to be within it, then it appears to be flamebait, or at best insulting.


EDIT: well shit, I posted from my wife's computer.

Sure.

One Gold Star to the straight-talkin' man in blue.

http://www.francesandcompany.com/asi...aperweight.jpg

I understand that...and I have no problem acknowledging the sincere motives of the anti-war brigade...it's the people who in one breath preach peace, love and understanding, and in the next breath turn into fire-breathing radical subversives advocating the overthrow of the government, or saying that people who blow up buses and subways aren't anything but what they are.

Let me make this as simple as I can:
So called terrorists are bad.
Our government is bad.
I will do everything I can to stop both from being bad, so long as my action is legal, moral, and nonviolent.

I advocate no violence for any reason. I despise violence, no matter the source. That means I am against Bin Laden, Saddam, Hitler, Bonaparte, Stalin, Ariel Sharon...and Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Clinton, Reagen, and even Jesus Christ (Matthew in 21:12, Mark in 11:15, Luke in 19:45, and John in 2:15). Violence as a solution to any problem is beneith us all.

I admit that aspects of the "war on terror" have been farcical. Whoever has been running the p.r. machine at the whitehouse the last 4-5 years should have been fired long ago. I don't appreciate listening to Rumsfeld say that mass looting days after the overthrow of Hussein should be rationalized away by saying people are simply "venting their naturally pent-up frustrations living under a dictator for 30 years" or that troop levels were adequate from the start.

On the other hand, I hold responsible the media outlets, journalists, politicians, etc. who are deliberately and cynically pursuing agendas detrimental to each and everything and everyone involved in any aspect of dealing with reform and/or terrorism. I believe that the people who are operating in the real world in these matters, on behalf of their country and their allies (current and potential), are fully aware of the underlying reasons for terrorism. I don't believe that these people are operating from a position of absolute ignorance or arrogance as some would have it. These are people highly educated, highly experienced, with years, decades, of working in the field of international terrorism (Richard Clarke comes to mind).

On top of this layer you have another layer of people who place no blame at all upon the perpetrators of the events such as those in the 1st post. They say of them: they hold no responsibility for what they do, they are helpless, downtrodden victims valiantly fighting the real forces of evil in the world, they have no right to meddle in their countries (overlooking the fact that they've been INVITED IN more times than not), and on down the line.

When one steps back to consider that the Industrialized World is +/-100 years old, and the Information Age ~ 30 or so - ie., an infintesimally short period of time in human existence - it stands to reason that the kinks need working out. I understand that certain groups feel their dignity has been abused, and therefore lash out. But one would think there need come a time when deals need to be made with those in power, opportunities exploited, development commenced, and self-defeating fury abandoned.

Point taken.
I would give 2 quick, contemporary, obvious examples to the contrary: Japan & Germany post-WW2.

Transformed by violence into modern, dignified, thriving, contributing, empowered, leading societies engaged peacefully with the rest of the world, despite ethnic and religious differences.

The point is that there is, I believe, productive violence, and non-productive violence.

They became decent countries not because of, but DESPITE the mindless violence. Violence produces pain, suffering, death, and is the exact opposite of progress. The reasons for Japan and Germany beign successful now are extremly complicated, but they do not invclude violence.

They do what they do for 2 reasons that I can see:

1) Because they (leading religious/political leaders) are religiously and culturally intolerant. That because of their religious convictions, they DO, in fact, hate (read: are intolerant of) freedom of speech, woman's rights, alternative religious viewpoints/lifestyles, and other values inherent in democracies. While it has become almost banal to say "They Hate Our Freedoms" because Bush says it in such a retarded way, I think the underlying meaning holds true: the religious/political leaders of certain islamic societies ARE hateful and intolerant of "our freedoms". And not just ours. Can there be any denying this?

2) Believe their dignity has been taken from them. While I do believe that people feel honestly abused, I also believe that much, MUCH, lies with how these peoples' religious/political leaders choose to deal with the external world (and how the world responds). Look at how people in America express how they feel about themselves (vis-a-vis Bush's foreign policies) - what with phenomena such as "weresorryworld.com" websites, self-loathing apologists, and otherwise neutral folk suddenly feeling anxious and guilty over the decisions made by their government.

--

I'm one of those who believe the excuse of Israeli occupation and US support of Israel are nothing more than...excuses. Nothing more. The Middle East has been occupied by everyone except Groucho Marx for the last 2 millenia at least. Arabs lived with jews lived with christians with no such terrorism as we see today. Minority populations of differing ethnicities lived in peace with majority ethnicities in that part of the world for long periods of time. There was tolerance and there was acceptance.

--

While I am also growing weary of the word 'terrorist", I still think it valid to hold those committing these acts responsible. There are other, more productive ways to communicate your grievances and this is where I have no problem placing blame. While I acknowledge that the word "terrorist" has been used ad nauseum by some as a short-term political tool, I don't think the real and existing issues of terrorism should be overlooked entirely just because it's been turned into a cheap political marketing tool. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, etc. I look forward to the day when these issues are addressed with a lesser degree of hysteria and a larger degree of success - I see it as an ongoing process.

Extremely well stated.....and I am forced to agree.

tecoyah, willravel, Ustwo, Mojo_PeiPei, ubertuber, The_Jazz, Charlatan, ratbastid, docbungle, kutulu, hannukah harry: Thanks for your candid and plain-spoken assessments and descriptions. Yes, there are many ways to deal with the issues of terrorism, running the spectrum of political ideology. Yet I would hazard a guess that the majority here see the overall issue more from a similar perspective than from a different one, ie., as more a condemnation than a blessing.

Powerclown, no offense, but I think that this thread was mental masturbation from its onset. You picked 10 very similar (with the exception of Beslan) incidents perpetrated by a very small minority of a group typically villified by the Western world. If you want to try to have a true discussion of what is terrorism and what isn't, you need to greatly expand your examples to allow us to explore the boundaries. Picking 10 of the most obvious examples doesn't do anything. I'd love to be a part of that discussion, but its going to take a lot of thought to try to set some parameters. Again, no offense, but you took the lazy way into this fostering this discussion.

new thread