Talk:Terrorism
From iA wiki
Here is another one of those fuzzy topics. I believe that the notion of terrorism is a load of rubbish. What's the difference between a terrorist and a criminal? Terrorism is just a classification of criminal activity for propaganda. Its the same with extremism, evil and zealotry...the use of these words is selective for political purposes.
"Terrorism includes threats to kill"
ok, let take a close look at the most blindingly glaring example. If anyone can remember just recently in mid
September Israel threated to kill Arafat. Nobody, particularly on mass media suggested this was terrorism and yet when a bunch on non-elected crazies crash planes into building the Muslim extremists are labelled terrorists.
What is that about? Why doesn't anyone discuss this shocking charade, perpetuated by the right-wing of the US.?
This global war on terrorism is an extremely grim farce. People that discuss this type of global war are not protecting people from evil, they are promoting it. They are pushing their favourite ideology, their political agenda, helping the religious mission and are protecting their dirty lifestyle in their homeland. Why don't they think that if you get attacked there is a reason. Why do they only think it gives them a right to attack back? Why aren't they more concerned about why it happened in the first place?
My belief is that U$ particular, California, are extrememly soft and vulnerable to terrorism.
Enemies of that countries are likely to exploit the gaping energy supply dilemma facing the USA and the global economy. It is very likely an attack on the flow of oil around the world will cause a very bad security scenario in their homeland. This, and climate change are the house of cards that people should be thinking about, not file sharing and piracy. If such a thing occured while a visitor was living there, and as the petroleum cache rapidly depleted even as a weakened military returns home for a lock-down, people would have still have time to leave.
The really bad thing as most Americans realise is that global warming from climate change is the biggest threat. And yet if you watched the tv, like that totally and utterly fucking creepy news channel, you'd think that americans are not concerned. So this total lack of integrity, shows their true agenda. Same with the US government.
The US has to forget is stupid unilaterialism. The moral high ground was lost over the Middle East. The war for terrorism is the final straw. Forgetting their obligations to act on climate change, is the real kicker cause they just dont threaten security now, but also well into the future. - ABliss
I completely agree with you that the term is often misued, at least by the US media. I'm going to put the dictionary.com definition because its a little bit better. When I saw peace activists (with the no hitting or blowing up thing) being portrayed as terrorists, that was the end of any kind of real meaning to the word. Thanks Fox News! Webfork
To me terrorism means trying to incite terror amongst the people in order to make a point. I don't see it as being anti-government at all, it's anti-society. Terrorists attack innocent people and attack randomly, making EVERYONE fear for their lives.
- People that attack others randomly are insane, not terrorists. As for terrorists making everyone fear them, this criteria pushes the USA to the top of the terrorist list. - ABliss
I can understand how some can draw a parallel with "protestors", though. Even though protestors may not physically attack innocent people, they certainly obstruct innocent people, which - aside from pissing everyone off - can harm people financially or emotionally. -- Amw
- Well, it's anti- a particular society or organization, really, usually as a result of that society's government's actions, or that organization's actions. I wouldn't say that terrorists attack *randomly*, though. Take for instance the attacks of today; a massive car bomb targets a particular person and his followers. Take Israel; Hamas, et al target the Israelis that they see as supporting the attacks on Palestinians and who are (by means of their existence in Israel) directly responsible for the displacement of Palestinians. Take the WTC terrorists; they attack a major center of western capitalism and the seat of government, both of which are responsible for the US's meddling in the middle east (read: lots of oil there).
- The people who enable these organizations to exist ARE responsible for their actions. The American people ARE responsible for allowing their government to subvert and attack other nations in secret. The terrorist mindset is that either (a) the people KNOW what their governments/other organizations are doing and are supportive of those actions (since they haven't acted to change them), and therefore deserve retribution, or (b) aren't aware of what their governments/other organizations are doing, and will need a significant act to draw their attention, perhaps to provoke them into action, and even if it doesn't, they deserve retribution for their ignorance anyway.
- Unfortunately for EVERYONE (b) works. In the US it works the wrong way. The people of the US are just as fucking ignorant of WHY terrorists do the things they do as ever before. They were provoked into action, but that action was a simpleminded violent response to violence (of course guided along by people with other interests -- again, oil). People ARE scared by terrorism, but in general their fright doesn't make them want to *learn* anything more! As you probably know, if they DID learn something, they would learn that their own government is responsible for such innumerable atrocities that they would never again be suprised by "terrorist attacks." crtn
- I'm sorry, but that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard. There was NO excuse for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Even if America really was this big evil country - which it's not - that still IN NO WAY would justify the killing of thousands of innocents. There was no warning. There was no tip-off to give people time to evacuate. America (and indeed the whole world) has a right to be pissed, and to retaliate. Trying to put the blame on the shoulders of the American public absolutely sickens me. It's like a rapist saying "oh she was wearing sexy clothes so she was asking for it". Bull fucking shit, it's still a crime. -- Amw
- nonono, you misunderstood what i meant. I'm not saying that *any* of those people are right for what they did. What I am saying is that there IS a link between certain deeds and the targets of terrorist attacks, they're not just random. I'm also saying that if (especially) the american people were more informed, and actually DID something to affect foreign policy (in the past tense, especially), we (americans) wouldn't be the target of so many attacks. I must reiterate: this DOES NOT _justify_ killing thousands of people, but it IS a _reason_ that they were killed. crtn
- Any terrorist attempting approach (B) in your above message would have no reason to kill anyone. The IRA (usually) called in just before a bomb went off, giving people time to evacuate. There would still be property destruction and a point would still be made, but not at the expense of innocents. Of course terrorist attacks like 9/11 are random! I'm sure there were hundreds of Moslems who died in the WTC. I'm sure there were dozens who died who actually agreed with Osama bin Laden's views. Did the terrorists take that into account? No. If they were really targeting the people responsible they would have sniped the president and his top advisors, not massacred innocent people just trying to make a living. THERE IS NO BLOOD ON THE HANDS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. -- Amw
- Well, off the topic of WTC now, I have to say that it is rather naive to believe that the American public is free of responsibility for the actions of its government. The US has a democracy of sorts, which means that the people of the US are responsible for choosing the people who are in office, who in turn are responsible for the acts of violence the US commits. This is a direct connection between state-sponsored violence and "the people". Yes, the democracy of the US is corrupted by the personal interests of politicians corporations and others, but these problems, too, could be addressed by "the people" if they got their shit in gear.
- What this amounts to is a government (and its actions) that "the people" either approve of directly (by their vote), or tacitly approve of (by their inaction).
- As for the "blood", I suggest you even briefly peruse The National Security Archive to find some. crtn
- Yes of course, Americans want to claim to be a democracy where government represents them, and yet not be responsible for those government actions. And herein lies the link and an interesting pattern. Religious leaders, [politics|politicians]] and people in the mass media all want you to suspend your dis-belief so that you can believe that what they say is beyond question.
- Obstruct innocent people...?....so anyone that protests must be obstructing others? Lets take this thinking further. Anyone that protests another actions is obstructing others rights to fairness. Imagine if people protesting apartheid in South Africa if they worried about upsetting the whites finances or emotions. Protesting has nothing to do with terrorism, whatever that is. - ABliss
I just had a thought that should be on another thread:
Posting anything about terrorism and american policy puts you on a "list" somewhere. Now you're flagged as a potential terrorist-sympathizer. I'm likely on a similar list because I post about crypto.
Your name... your SSN... your Internet logs... your e-mail... fucked up but probably true.
I look at it like this: if you were an organization with unlimited resources (billions) charged with America's security and someone came up on Google talking about this stuff, who would YOU track?
This is the Panopticon at work. Now, after I've said this, will you restrict what you say?
I really hope not.
Socrates said, before he died, "do not shave your head." Shaving head hair was and in many cultures still is a sign of being in mourning. He said, when the discussion dies, then shave your head.
- eh, I figure I was probably on a list before now. There's enough "objectionable" things to monitor that I think most people are on a list somewhere... crtn
> Anarchists are often considered terrorists by default by people with conservative political beliefs.
Boy, that's not going to start a directionless and stupid debate by a conservative who drops by! Not at all! Whoever wrote it: please feel free to re-add this line if you're willing to give it a little more background - otherwise its just picking a fight. Webfork
- I would tend to agree with this. However liberals do the same thing. So maybe that qualifier should be added. - ABliss
- Haha! That was me (could you guess?) crtn
>The goal of terrorism is generaly regarded as not being to actulay cause dammage, nor to show power, nor to persuade politicians of one cause or another, but that it is purely an attack on the facade of power held by all governments. It aims to show that the government does not hold enough power to stop people doing such things.
Based on my understanding of the subject, this is grossly innacurate, almost absurd. Terrorism in the definition presented at this site has a wide variety of motivations but one of them is not a contented populace. Please present some corroborating evidence or quit wasting our time. --Webfork 04:33, 5 December 2005 (GMT)
