ForumsWEPRTerrorism in general

35 3302
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,685

Hey guys i'm starting a new thread.

Have you ever thought that maybe terrorism is, in itself flawed as a word? Because there are lots of different perception on who's terrorist and who's countering it. tell me what you think. Also is terrorist some kind of propaganda type word? implying that there is no such thing is terrorist in general.

  • 35 Replies
pHacon
offline
pHacon
1,909 posts
310

Well, that brings back fond memories of boot camp.

Yes and no. People tend to use the word incorrectly, is all. For example, given the "War on Terror" and the conflicts in the Middle East, people seem to use terrorist as a catchall rather than more appropriate titles such as insurgent/extremist/freedom fighter because they group them with the same people who started the mess with terrorist incidents, based on misconceptions of shared culture and goals. i.e., out of ignorance.

The word is politically charged, yes, and that means it's even more likely to be misused, but it's still a particular word to describe particular actions taken by particular people.

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,685

So pHacon, you were saying that there ARE terrorist? not that everybody that was called terrorist not an insurgent or extremist or freedom fighter? for example, on Indonesia there are a group called OPM, some kind Papuan free movement. there they was called a terrorist movement, but according to your description we would call him "freedom fighter" organization right?

pHacon
offline
pHacon
1,909 posts
310

They could very well be both, depending on the methods they employ, and the side from which you're viewing the conflict. The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

The difference is in the goals and how they strive to meet them. If their goal is some kind of political or social liberty, they're freedom fighters. If their method is violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into giving them that liberty, they're terrorists.

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,685

If their goal is some kind of political or social liberty, they're freedom fighters. If their method is violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into giving them that liberty, they're terrorists.


Explain more about this. Note that freedom fighters can (but not always i know) also use violence to reach what they want, they can even use threat of violence to reach liberty and freedom. let's get back to the OPM shall we? They wanted the freedom of West Papua district (The east you would call Papua New Guinea), they use a variety of ways; propaganda, lobbying the indigenous people. They also kidnap officials, blowing their heads off , political assassination, and pamphlet distribution of what they fought for. In Indonesia they are called "terrorist", but is it really true and just not some kind of propaganda word?

Terrorist aren't also always using violence or the threat of one to coerce people to give them liberty. remember Republic of south Africa? back in the day when apartheid was enforced, they call anyone that oppose the regime by trying to abolish apartheid terrorist, even if they just make a pamphlet bomb and blow it in the marketplace (and just if you ask, that bomb is non lethal and what it does is that when the contraption explode, they scatter pamphlets everywhere). Are they terrorist or not? Some just made the bomb, while others are more "active", so to speak

So in case 1 and 2, which was the terrorist and the freedom fighter ? also please give your reason
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,718 posts
20,765

Explain more about this. Note that freedom fighters can (but not always i know) also use violence to reach what they want, they can even use threat of violence to reach liberty and freedom.

Isn't that exactly what pHacon was meaning when he wrote "The terms aren't mutually exclusive"?

A terrorist is one that uses terror as an instrument to reach his goal. There are terrorists out there. Honestly tough, I feel that in politics the term is far too often misused to designate someone you want the world to see as an unconditional enemy, justifying any measures against them.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

A terrorist will suicide bombing in a resturant.
A freedome fighter fight the army and try not to arm the population.

Minotaur55
offline
Minotaur55
1,387 posts
2,720

I think the word terrorist is a word that has not only been overused but lost it's meaning. A terrorist is (in a general sense) a person who posses the ability and want to commit destruction that effects masses and strikes fear into the hearts of people with a weapon that can't be fought off by normal means. For instance, you can't defeat a suicide bomber with a bomb strapped to his chest by shooting him with a gun. What do you do? You panic, a bomb explodes, people go crazy in fear and horror, etc.

A "Terrorist" now-a-days is referred to as just a man with a massive amount of weaponry killing people when 10 - 15 years ago they were just called serial killers or psychopaths. Half the time terrorist may do what they do because of an emotional reaction, perhaps. Maybe because they hate America. A emotionally unstable person, I'd say, is a true terrorist. A person who is doing this because they feel they need to or are ordered to are not terrorist but should instead be referred to as what they are in general, murderers.

Haven't you noticed that pretty much every Muslim terrorist blows up something out of an emotional response? Hating America is an emotional thing, acting upon it would mean that an action is triggered via an emotional feeling. Even if their religion thinks it's right, facts are not put on the table many times in religion. It's an emotional response.

Plain serial killers and murders just shoot people for no reason or do this because it makes them feel better. The reasons vary and usually have nothing to do with emotions but instead just lack of mental health.

danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

I disagree mancow.

Terrorists has goals. They want something or lie to themsleves they do. Some do it for the feeling they are a part of something bigger.

I say, a terrorist is one who try by causing fear on his rivals to achive a goal.
If he try to do it in battle, they are freedom fighters. If they dont harm anyone, they are protesters. If they enter a village and slaughter a sleeping family they are terrorists.

Also, amany times its depend on the individual. Here in Israel for say, Pata"h, one of the Palestinian organizatiions (the one we negotiate witg) used to be a terrorist organization. They kiddnaped, they suicide bomb(ing/erd/whatever), they stabbed citizens. But now they talk, and even if try to show muscles, they mostly aim at soliders ( 0.o ).

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

A terrorist is (in a general sense) a person who posses the ability and want to commit destruction that effects masses and strikes fear into the hearts of people with a weapon that can't be fought off by normal means.

The type of weapon is irrelevant, as is its spread. Their motive is the primary factor for gaining the terrorist label. For example, if they're executing a political hostage with a butter knife on public television, it's not widespread, nor is the weapon considered serious, but it furthers their goals through the use of terror to create/exploit fear.

A "Terrorist" now-a-days is referred to as just a man with a massive amount of weaponry killing people when 10 - 15 years ago they were just called serial killers or psychopaths

Perhaps it's because a serial killer is a much more specific thing. It's calculated, planned, meticulous, patterned, selective, etc., not a random spree. Psychopathy as a term encompasses social disorders, which may or may not be factors.

Plain serial killers and murders just shoot people for no reason

From extreme hatred to desperation to sheer boredom, there's always a reason.

I say, a terrorist is one who try by causing fear on his rivals to achive a goal.

Yep, it's about sending a message.

If they enter a village and slaughter a sleeping family they are terrorists.

*murderers. They'd additionally be terrorists if this act was demonstrably part of a larger goal.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

The real question is -
Does a terrorist have to be a part of a group?

If someone decide to stab someone on the base of their nationality/"race"/hobbies/sexual preferences/political opinion, is he a terrorist, or a meniac who use this "excuse" to act?
If he do it in a name of a group he is one, or if he do it in the name of a idea?

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

The real question is -
Does a terrorist have to be a part of a group?

The real answer is -
No.

If someone decide to stab someone on the base of their nationality/"race"/hobbies/sexual preferences/political opinion, is he a terrorist, or a meniac who use this "excuse" to act?

Generally yes to terrorist, but it depends if they're using it as a message to the 'group' or the government or to further an objective. Terrorism tends to have a step two. Maniac and terrorist are not mutually exclusive labels. This someone could be either or both.

Ex: terrorist, nutcase.

If he do it in a name of a group he is one, or if he do it in the name of a idea?

Either.
Minotaur55
offline
Minotaur55
1,387 posts
2,720

The type of weapon is irrelevant


Actually yes it is relevant. You wouldn't call a kid walking around the street of a poor neighborhood with a combat knife in his hand a terrorist. You can't do a lot of damage with just one knife. However, lets consider he's walking around a neighborhood with an AK-47 and just shoots people. He'd just be branded a murderer. However, if he had multiple types of weapons and possibly a bomb he'd be branded a terrorist. Look at most of the terrorism cases - they usually involve someone having a large amount of weaponry striking masses(usually in public places) with a large amount of witnesses (most of which who wind up dead). That's pretty much every terrorist that has appeared for the last 10 (ish) years.

A "Terrorist" now-a-days is referred to as just a man with a massive amount of weaponry killing people when 10 - 15 years ago they were just called serial killers or psychopaths


Perhaps it's because a serial killer is a much more specific thing. It's calculated, planned, meticulous, patterned, selective, etc., not a random spree.

-
If they enter a village and slaughter a sleeping family they are terrorists.


*murderers. They'd additionally be terrorists if this act was demonstrably part of a larger goal.


You just said that terrorists do have plans and they don't. According to you terrorists have an "objective" or "goal" to send a message via attacks. So lets play devil's advocate here with a hypothetical situation:

Picture a Muslim terrorist. He HATES America. So he comes up with a plan to attack America to show the might of either Islam or his country. He gets together some friends and heads over seas to attack, lets say, the world trade center. His ultimate goal is to give up his life to show the might of his country or religion. He straps a bomb to himself, and through an unrealistic scenario of him being able to evade security and bomb detection he blows up the building.

No one will really consider why he did what he did because certain things don't add up. How would he show his superiority by blowing himself up in the name of one religion/country? How would people translate this into him showing off a sense of power by striking fear into people if he isn't working along side his government (and by me saying that I mean his government sent him there to send a message to America)? How would people know why he did what he did?

It started with the ultimate objective that he hated America and wished harm upon it. To feel something is one thing, to act upon it means that everything action that comes forth in this &quotlan" was done out of an emotional reaction.

The logical thing to do if he hated America was to avoid it. I hate a lot of things, none of them I wish harm on. I just avoid those things and proceed to the things I do want. If this thing I hate stands in my way I resort to self defense but it isn't self defense when you go out of your home country just to kill yourself and spread "terror" into the hearts of people and in that moment not even be able to collect on the feeling.

Even if it isn't a suicide bomber, to get out of your way to form a plan to harm innocents and put your future in danger by facing years in federal prison you can't be working on logic. Fear of imprisonment, death, failure, to be stopped, or to have your message ignored should logically outweigh someones one goal.

From extreme hatred to desperation to sheer boredom, there's always a reason.


That has to do with lack of mental stability and health. It has nothing to do with normal emotion or a normal reaction. Normal people don't kill each other because they're bored. Also, you just said that serial killers do what they do either out of a calculated plan or off a in the moment feeling like depression or boredom. They can be both, absolutely, but it leads up to one fact: lack of mental stability.

With Terrorism it's the same thing. But it's an emotional reaction. People do not, in a logical frame of mind, seek to end peoples lives. Unless it's in some other case in which it has to do with miscellaneous things outside of terrorism (for instance, someone has a deadly virus and needs to be killed or go to war with a country).
Minotaur55
offline
Minotaur55
1,387 posts
2,720

everything action


*every action

Woops.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

Cowman, thats not terrorism. Terrorism is much more complicated.

First of, there are many kinds. There is the "single", ehich is basicly a man waking up in the morning and deciding to go kill Israelis. He can plan, even bring a friend, but he dose not connected to any group. He will leave a papper, a "last words".

And there are the big fishes. These guys are pros. They have media members who make a "Taking the blame" movies. There are some in Youtube. Ill suggest you to not look them up. They say in these who they are, what they want, and basicly "how cool they are". They add music (even sing!) And etc.
These videos are not for the victim. They are made to recruit new members, as propoganda, or more like "commercials". Show ther acts.

Another thing: Its not about the arming either. A terrorist can be armed by s knife. The one who murdered the sleeping rookie on the bus last week stabed him with a pocket knife. Does this make him a terrorist? He did it for his ideaoligy (against negotiating and against Israel).

I say, a terrorist is one who use terror acts to make a stronger force accept his terms, or bringing his cause to the peoples mind.

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

You can't do a lot of damage with just one knife.

As I said in the example, you can do plenty emotionally and psychologically depending on who/what you're damaging.

You just said that terrorists do have plans and they don't.

No, I said that previously labeling them as serial killers and psychopaths may be incorrect depending on the case. And killing in itself does not make one a terrorist. Again, a lot of these terms are not mutually exclusive.

Fear of imprisonment, death, failure, to be stopped, or to have your message ignored should logically outweigh someones one goal.

If people's fears should logically outweigh their goals, why would anyone ever do anything?

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be." - Winston Churchill
Showing 1-15 of 35