Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Terrorism in general

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 12:26am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 12:42am

pHacon

pHacon

1,941 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 3:02am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

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?

 

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 7:49am

pHacon

pHacon

1,941 posts

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.

 

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 8:48am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

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
 

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 12:26pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,306 posts

Knight

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.
 

Posted Nov 24, '13 at 4:18pm

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

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

 

Posted Nov 25, '13 at 2:13am

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,318 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Nov 25, '13 at 3:05am

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

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 ).

 

Posted Nov 25, '13 at 4:24am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

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.
 
Reply to Terrorism in general

You must be logged in to post a reply!