Terrorist... or not...?

For obvious reasons, I can't help to feel that the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' is widely abused. Most recently down in Kenya (if you ask me, that was "merely a streak of genocide")... So, now I want to ask you to type down your definition of the word terrorism, in your own words. I'll dump the definition from Oxford's dictionary here some day (in a week or two, perhaps). Now, no bashing each other in the topic; what's PM for, anyway? :) If you really REALLY have to do it here, be civil about it. And use proper grammar. :p

Ok, I'll go first.

Terrorism
An act (a threat, direct violence, whatever) undertaken with the purpose to inspire fear in the population somewhere. Usually meant to cause general chaos, or to line the terrorist's own pocket with gold (ransom).

(Heh, by that definition, George W Bush and christian priests are the archterrorists of archterrorists! (With bin Ladin close behind, ok, ok.) :D We've all heard Bush's threats about bombing Iraq if Hussein doesn't allow UN's inspectors to operate at full efficiency, and about the christian priests... Do I need to mention more than hell?)
I look forward to read your definitions.
 
well, my definition of a terrorist is a cowardly subhuman whose *ONLY* right (regardless of what country he/she is in or from) is the right to an immediate and violent death (three 9mm bullets to the head works just fine)
 
Countries recognized by the UN don't comit acts of terrorism. Policing Actions? Yes. Covert Ops? Yes. War? Yes.

However, the point of terrorism is to create terror and unbalance in an area or against certain people. What Bush is doing isn't terrorism, it's an ultimatium.
 
Mystery Muppet, be careful in what you say on here. One wrong post and your history. Tread carefully with political topics here, you might never know who browses these boards...
 
Homeland Security? They're mere pawns in this game. No, Chris meant someone else... he meant them!
 
No one beats Webster...

*** Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) ***

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

Terrorist \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.]
One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically,
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the
Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

Terrorize \Ter"ror*ize\, v. t. [Cf. F. terroriser.]
To impress with terror; to coerce by intimidation.
_
Humiliated by the tyranny of foreign despotism, and
terrorized by ecclesiastical authority. --J. A.
Symonds.

Terror \Ter"ror\, n. [L. terror, akin to terrere to frighten,
for tersere; akin to Gr. ? to flee away, dread, Skr. tras to
tremble, to be afraid, Russ. triasti to shake: cf. F.
terreur. Cf. {Deter}.]
1. Extreme fear; fear that agitates body and mind; violent
dread; fright.
_
Terror seized the rebel host. --Milton.
_
2. That which excites dread; a cause of extreme fear.
_
Those enormous terrors of the Nile. --Prior.
_
Rulers are not a terror to good works. --Rom. xiii.
3.
_
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats.
--Shak.

Note: Terror is used in the formation of compounds which are
generally self-explaining: as, terror-fraught,
terror-giving, terror-smitten, terror-stricken,
terror-struck, and the like.
_
{King of terrors}, death. --Job xviii. 14.
_
{Reign of Terror}. (F. Hist.) See in Dictionary of Noted
Names in Fiction.
_
Syn: Alarm; fright; consternation; dread; dismay. See
{Alarm}.
 
LeHah, i think you may be mistaken:

"However, the point of terrorism is to create terror and unbalance in an area or against certain people. What Bush is doing isn't terrorism, it's an ultimatium."

if that is the point then how the hell could what bush is doing be anythign but? Does he generate terror in the minds of every freedom loving, war hating (or someone who is one of his randomly selected targets), moral human being? certainly.

will his actions bring stability to afghanistan, most definitely not, the minute american troops leave, is the minute the current government is dead.

will his war in iraq (when it happens) cause massive imbalances throughout the middle east and specifically in iraq? there is no question about the certainty of this.


I am quite frankly appalled that someone as immoral as aries exists. seriously a "terrorist" today is someone's george washington tomorrow. IN fact georgy boy, and all the american revolutionaries qualify as "terrorists" if palestinian groups do.
interestingly enough i fail to see why a "terrorist" is any different from a soldier? they both see the need to murder people they are both murderers whose job is to kill and get killed.
 
Originally posted by Napoleon


IN fact georgy boy, and all the american revolutionaries qualify as "terrorists" if palestinian groups do.

I dunno about that. Revolutionaries during that time period didn't blow up homes and hotels and businesses in an effort to convince the British that they should be freed, I don't think you can draw such a correlation effectively. They both might be freedom fighters, if you wanted to see it from the Palestinian viewpoint, but you can't say that the Revolutionaries were terrorists when they didn't try to strike terror.
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
if that is the point then how the hell could what bush is doing be anythign but? Does he generate terror in the minds of every freedom loving, war hating (or someone who is one of his randomly selected targets), moral human being? certainly.

No, you misunderstand.

Terrorism, n. : The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

What Bush is providing isn't prepetuating terrorism, he's telling an inevitability. As the United States is a recognized body politic by the rest of the world, we cannot attribute aggressive attacks on our part as terrorism. However, Bin Ladin, that dirty fucking gopher-in-hiding that he is, is neither in charge of a government, working with a government or in charge of a recognized military force on behalf of a rebellion.

Reading the above definition will clearly, if not make blindingly obvious, that America is incapible of terrorism. We are capible of war, however.

will his actions bring stability to afghanistan, most definitely not, the minute american troops leave, is the minute the current government is dead.

That's not our problem. As I see it, as an individual bent on survival by instinct, I want us to do whatever it takes and then-some to make my survival possible from cowardly militant religious radicals of all types. I'd be in the Army if I didn't have an arthritic back at 21.

To be completely frank and un-PC, I think we should grab every terrorist we can find and plug them in the knees and leave them to crawl out of the middle of the desert. I don't have time to give two shits about "people" who enforce a religious belief through violence. It's why I hate Christianity, it's why I hate Baptists, it's why I hate God.

will his war in iraq (when it happens) cause massive imbalances throughout the middle east and specifically in iraq? there is no question about the certainty of this.

"Mercy was yet unborn, save as some individual's whim, and rules of warfare were as yet undreamed. It was an age in which
each tribe and each human fought tooth and fang from birth to death, and neither gave nor expected mercy... It was easy because we knew our chances for survival increased with each enemy slain" - "The Valley Of The Worm" by Robert E Howard

It is not our business to give two rat fucks about Iraq after we've taken out the danger to the western world. Let them figure out what not to do, as they'll have learned their lesson when we roll M-1 tanks through and fire depleted uranium shells at their shitty defenses.

I am quite frankly appalled that someone as immoral as aries exists. seriously a "terrorist" today is someone's george washington tomorrow. IN fact georgy boy, and all the american revolutionaries qualify as "terrorists" if palestinian groups do.


Theres a big difference between Washington and Bin Ladin or Hussain. Washington did not target civilians, he did not attack the british on their own turf, England was oppressing them in many ways and the fact that England was so far away and attempting to rule the Americas was absurd.

I would not compare a revolutionary like, say, Timothy Leary to a Palestinian group.

It begins and ends with whom has the want more than the other. Naysayers are nothing more than whiny and complacent children whom are accustomed to sitting on their hands and letting other people do the dirty work. Society has drained survival mechanisms out in place of well-meaning, but ultimately asinine psudo-psychological mishmash where an enemy can be brought to their senses. Instead of posting this, I should be pumping round after glorious American-made round into a terrorist.

God bless America: Not because we're right, but because we're right.
 
Back
Top