by Stan Conroy 34 Replies latest social current
There is the old claim that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter but I think people who attack civilians are terrorists.
The problem is, the phrase is over-used and has recently been used to signify "people who attack our forces". Of course, our brave troops are soldiers at war but anyone who fights back is a dirty low-down terrorist. It's just political phraseology to sway opinion. Calling the enemy soldiers might make people imagine that they have a right to fight back.
Personally, I don't find teh term to be that difficult to fathom. Nor do I agree that most people are somehow losing site of what terrorism actually is. My collegiate dictionary puts it plainly: "to fill with terror and anxiety esp as a means of coercion, SCARE; to coerce by threat or violence."
We know what happened at 9-11 constituted terrorism. An unprovoked, horrific, non-wartime act upon civilians. Bombings, suicide or otherwise, of the UN compound was an act of terrorism. The initial bombing of the WTC was an act of terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist.
I don't believe the killing of US soliders by a few Iraqi dissidents during wartime occupation, as unfortunate as it is, is thought to be "terrorism" in the same sense at all. The reason we went over there was to depose a despot whose entire regime was terroristic. We cannot reasonably expect to be occupying a foreign nation that we've just declared war upon without some potential injury to our solidiers, esp in a country in which terrorism was the norm (fostered by Saddam's regime).
As I said, I don't think trying to blur the lines somehow between what constitutes terrorism both domestically and internationally is very convincing. Trying to lump everything in one category would eventually lead us to the conclusion that all war or any form of violence constitutes "terrorism." (I'm sure some people already believe this.)
Anyway, it is a poll, and that's my 2 cents.
We know what happened at 9-11 constituted terrorism. An unprovoked, horrific, non-wartime act upon civilians. Bombings, suicide or otherwise, of the UN compound was an act of terrorism. The initial bombing of the WTC was an act of terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist.
The bombing of the un building was terrorism, so does that make the allied bombing of Iraqi government buildings also terrorism? Whats the difference? Personally, I feel that the definition what is a terrorist act is purely for propagander purposes. In war there are a lot of actions which would otherwise be viewed as terrorism. Just because one side thinks it has won and packs up to go home doesn't mean the otherside automatically gives in, sometimes they continue fighting. They are then called terrorists, but for them its still the war continuing.
Gadget
“The bombing of the un building was terrorism, so does that make the allied bombing of Iraqi government buildings also terrorism? Whats the difference? Personally, I feel that the definition what is a terrorist act is purely for propagander purposes. In war there are a lot of actions which would otherwise be viewed as terrorism.”
As I said in my prior posts, I believe the attempt to generalize “terrorism” in this manner is a veiled attempt to rationalize that all acts of violence against, including against any GOVERNMENT, constitutes ‘terrorism.”
I see nothing “propagandistic” about terming 9-11 the work of terrorists. What, exactly, was their point in terrifying innocent people and demolishing the WTC, which housed civilians? What was the point in bombing the UN compound, which housed innocent, largely civilian people? Were these acts of defense? What, fundamentally, did they accomplish?
“Just because one side thinks it has won and packs up to go home doesn't mean the otherside automatically gives in, sometimes they continue fighting. They are then called terrorists, but for them its still the war continuing.”
You are confusing a small group of dissidents who still have ties with terrorists groups (including Saddam loyalists), with the entire Iraqi people. The vast majority of Iraqis are thrilled Saddam is gone, even if they are not thrilled about US occupation. Saddam was a terrifying man. Clearly, it’s not a matter of the majority of Iraqi people trying to oust the US because they toppled Saddam. As I said, I think most people can grasp what terrorism constitutes. Terrorists love using innocent people to instill fear; they'll even try to take the credit for horrible situations when they likely had nothing to do with (i.e. the recent NW-and area blackout). I think when you start thinking about their motivations, the true meaning of terrorism becomes clearer.
they'll even try to take the credit for horrible situations when they likely had nothing to do with (i.e. the recent NW-and area blackout).
You mean like for propagander purposes?
I think when you start thinking about their motivations, the true meaning of terrorism becomes clearer.
That depends on what veiwpoint you look at their motivations from. For example, think of apostates protesting at an assembly, silentlambs, ect. What did you think of them when you were a witness, and what do you think of them now?
' they'll even try to take the credit for horrible situations when they likely had nothing to do with (i.e. the recent NW-and area blackout).’
“You mean like for propagander purposes?”
More like in hopes of instilling fear in the hearts and minds of US people. I’m not clear on how you feel killing (or otherwise servely harming) innocent civilians is simply a matter of “propaganda.” I think propaganda exists in many, many forms, but when it takes the form of murdering innocent people to prove some sort of point, then I hardly think it is responsible to simply label it “propaganda.”
' I think when you start thinking about their motivations, the true meaning of terrorism becomes clearer.'
“That depends on what veiwpoint you look at their motivations from. For example, think of apostates protesting at an assembly, silentlambs, ect. What did you think of them when you were a witness, and what do you think of them now?”
How do apostates peacefully protesting at assemblies equate to terrorist fascists who kill innocent people, exactly? I used to secretly admire apostates. Now if I saw them protesting peacefully, I would simply think they were wasting their time and feeding JWs persecution complex.
But if they began bombing assemblies and killing people because they have a beef with the WTS, I’d think they were terrorists who need to be stopped.
I think propaganda exists in many, many forms, but when it takes the form of murdering innocent people to prove some sort of point, then I hardly think it is responsible to simply label it “propaganda.”
Its not the act that is propagander, it is the way it is treated afterwards. Murdering innocent people is wrong. How come the french resistance in ww2 is thought of in a very good light, but the IRA in Eireland are dangerous terrorists. Please do not take this as showing any support for them or their action which I think are totally wrong. But both are underground groups who's stated aim is to free their country from an occupying force, the french from the the germans, and the Irish from the English. How come one is labelled hero's and the others dangerous terrorists?
By mentioning apostates I did not mean the techniques that they use, I meant the way in which they are viewed. May jw's despise them, and flee from them scared because 'they are dangerous to their faith'. And yet many apostates used to feel like this but are here now. The same situation viewed from two different viewpoints giving totally different outcomes.
We know what happened at 9-11 constituted terrorism. An unprovoked, horrific, non-wartime act upon civilians. Bombings, suicide or otherwise, of the UN compound was an act of terrorism. The initial bombing of the WTC was an act of terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist.
I agree that Saddam was a terrorism but there is little or no evidence that he had anything to do with Sep 11
If the definition is that a terrorist spreads terror then what of our own countries who hype up the risk of attack and make people more terrified in order to increas support for their cause? Does this constitute a milder form of terrorism?
Does this constitute a milder form of terrorism?
 |
|
The government allegedly used the fear(Or terror) of an imminent attack from a weapon of mass destruction to talk people into(Or to coerce them) agreeing with an invasion of Iraq. According to the dictionary this would constitute an act of terrorism.
If the definition is that a terrorist spreads terror then what of our own countries who hype up the risk of attack and make people more terrified in order to increas support for their cause? Does this constitute a milder form of terrorism?
Ok, that is just stupid and insulting.
rem
