What is Terrorism?

[RPGMasterTurk91]

I'm not asking because I don't know what "terrorism" means, rather I want to see what everyone else thinks about the topic and what they could define "terrorism" as. It's interesting to note the actual definition of terrorism in America is very vage and actually doesn't exist in a complete form.

What do you think when you hear the word "terrorism"? The concept itself is shoved down our throats daily by new media outlets who have personal agendas, but never well defined.

Some key things to note and things that are on my mind pertaining to the general scheme of things concerning the topic.

Nowadays, Muslims usually come to mind in this regard. Islam has gotten such a bad rep from the media these days (and believe it or not way before September 11th). Thanks to what we are being told by our limited sources and what we are being kept from being told, we are led to believe that the religion is the problem. But the problem isn't the religion, but rather a certain group of people who feel that an even bigger injustice has been done to them. Terrorism is not the monopoly of ANY religion. Every religion has had its bad share of people. There have been Hindu terrorists, Sikh terrorists, Christian terrorists, even Jewish terrorists, and yes--Buddhist terrorists, and the first suicide bomber group were the Tamil Tigers (not Muslim). It is also important to note that there were no suicide bombings ever before in Iraq until America invaded and raped all of its treasures (in order to protect and ensure strategic, military, and economic superiority), all while shamelessly claiming that we were there to help.

Did you know that if we go by the definition of a terrorist in America, we consider all of those who defended the USA in the Revolutionary War as die-hard terrorists.

"A suicide bomber is a poor man's F-16".

 

[Shadow*91]

while i disagree with overall most of that post, i will answer the question.

as my teachers in school put it- Terrorism is the usage of torture, fear, and other violent means to achieve a goal; usually destructive and usually motivated through religion, pride, insanity, or any combination there of.

that's what i was taught in high school.

 

[navarre]

The American colonists were terrorists. We British have been teaching terroists a lesson ever since the time of King James 1, when Catholics tried to blow up the Protestant King.

 

[Napalmbrain]

The American colonists were terrorists. We British have been teaching terroists a lesson ever since the time of King James 1, when Catholics tried to blow up the Protestant King.

You know Britain never did teach those American colonists/"terrorists" a lesson, right?

 

[navarre]

The American colonists were terrorists. We British have been teaching terroists a lesson ever since the time of King James 1, when Catholics tried to blow up the Protestant King.

You know Britain never did teach those American colonists/"terrorists" a lesson, right?

See also 'War of 1812'. We burnt down the capital city of those rebels who were getting a bit too big for their boots.

 

[Napalmbrain]

The American colonists were terrorists. We British have been teaching terroists a lesson ever since the time of King James 1, when Catholics tried to blow up the Protestant King.

You know Britain never did teach those American colonists/"terrorists" a lesson, right?

See also 'War of 1812'. We burnt down the capital city of those rebels who were getting a bit too big for their boots.

You mean that War of 1812 where America successfully defended itself from Britain? Yeah, we certainly taught them a lesson...

 

[Squall7]

I pretty much agree the RPGTurk. There's a lot of racial abuse against anyone with a certain skin colour, happening even in the UK. There was a panarama episode about it in a Bristol council estate, finding even young boys and girls being racially abusive to people who moved in (they were undercover reporters).

I saw a youtube video of a guy explaining very well about the difference between culture and religion. Found it...[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8q9w3rxsy8[/ame]

I've also heard to other end of the spectrum whereby a Christian extremist murders a retired abortion doctor.

As for the definition of a terrorist, I say its someone that uses fear to get what they want. Though that definition may possibly be too vague. Usually the fear is losing one's life.

Although saying that, there is the old adage - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

I pretty much agree the RPGTurk. There's a lot of racial abuse against anyone with a certain skin colour, happening even in the UK. There was a panarama episode about it in a Bristol council estate, finding even young boys and girls being racially abusive to people who moved in (they were undercover reporters).

I saw a youtube video of a guy explaining very well about the difference between culture and religion. Found it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8q9w3rxsy8

I've also heard to other end of the spectrum whereby a Christian extremist murders a retired abortion doctor.

As for the definition of a terrorist, I say its someone that uses fear to get what they want. Though that definition may possibly be too vague. Usually the fear is losing one's life.

Although saying that, there is the old adage - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Yep, exactly.

What I'd also like to point out is the fact that when the media portrays certain people as being "terrorists", it only applies to certain people. Timothy McVae was not once ever called a terrorist. He was born and raised in America and taught the American school system. He was white and "insane" but never deemed a terrorist. What we are being told is always being blown to proportion.

What the crazy medical-psychiatrist man did in Texas was of course bad, his actions would constitute to him being labeled as a "terrorist", but any case, not matter how big or small, has the potential to be made bigger or worse than it seems (I'm not saying this wasn't a horrible incident that took place). The media loves these bad apples--without them, the ratings wouldn't be so high, which is all they want/need. Putting people in a state of fear is controlling them as well, isn't it? It motivates people to "do something" to end what is portrayed as absolute evil with no justification behind it. You aren't "forcing" them per say, but you are instilling in the minds of the people whose major options are biased networks with rigged explanations due to the personal agenda behind the case.

News reports like to play with peoples' minds. They call people what they want to (and thus label them in this way) so that the people see the case only from their perspective (and while we have open-minded people, we know that the majority of the people--which is more than enough--will follow through). What I am explaining is actually a repeat of what many have said before about a biased media, but the majority of the people still don't get it and are generally vulnerable and listen to what they see and hear.

Let me know if I was being at all confusing, when I write away, I tend to be off-balance sometimes (this message was to all, not specifically Squall, I was just quoting and agreeing with what he said).

 

[irape4free]

one mans freedom fighter another mans terrorist

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

one mans freedom fighter another mans terrorist

Yep, if we examine this simple statement, we realize that what once concludes as one thing, another perspective sees it as another.

 

[Skippy]

Terrorism targets civilians as opposed to rebellion or regular war which is against military targets.

What I'd also like to point out is the fact that when the media portrays certain people as being "terrorists", it only applies to certain people. Timothy McVae was not once ever called a terrorist.

I heard McVeigh referred to as a "domestic terrorist" in almost every news report. And that was just regular mainstream network news.

 

[sanman]

I think that terrorism involves attacks deliberately aimed against civilians, because civilians are helpless and can't fight back.

So if you're a terrorist, you typically don't want to fight opposing soldiers, since they can shoot back. Instead, you want to go after the softer vulnerable parts of society, to terrorize them.

Regarding the original poster's comments about different religions and terrorism, I assume that because he is a Muslim, he feels that other religions need to be blamed more. Well, the Tamil Tigers are not a religious terrorist group - Tamil is a linguistic group (people who speak the Tamil language), and there are Tamil speakers who are Hindus, Christians and Muslims who actually belong to the Tamil Tiger terrorist group. Likewise, the IRA (Irish Republican Army) is a terrorist group composed of Irish Catholics, but not all Catholics, nor all Irish. The FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec) committed terrorist acts during the 1970s, and was composed of French-Canadians in Quebec who were fighting to create an independent country. They were not composed of all Quebecers, nor all French-Canadians, nor were they fighting for the Catholic religion even though many French-Canadians are Catholics.

The degree of correlation between a terrorist group and a wider religion would probably be proportional to the level of feelings in the wider religion towards the cause that the terrorists are fighting for. For instance, not everybody in the West supports Israel against the Palestinians - there are many people in the West who support the Palestinians over Israel. But how many in the Muslim world support a different ethnic/religious group over their own? That to me is an important question, which affects credibility and objectivity. If you only support your own group all the time, regardless of the circumstances or the situation, and cannot provide any examples to the contrary, then you're pretty much advertising what your biases are and what your credibility is.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

I think that terrorism involves attacks deliberately aimed against civilians, because civilians are helpless and can't fight back.

So if you're a terrorist, you typically don't want to fight opposing soldiers, since they can shoot back. Instead, you want to go after the softer vulnerable parts of society, to terrorize them.

Regarding the original poster's comments about different religions and terrorism, I assume that because he is a Muslim, he feels that other religions need to be blamed more. Well, the Tamil Tigers are not a religious terrorist group - Tamil is a linguistic group (people who speak the Tamil language), and there are Tamil speakers who are Hindus, Christians and Muslims who actually belong to the Tamil Tiger terrorist group. Likewise, the IRA (Irish Republican Army) is a terrorist group composed of Irish Catholics, but not all Catholics, nor all Irish. The FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec) committed terrorist acts during the 1970s, and was composed of French-Canadians in Quebec who were fighting to create an independent country. They were not composed of all Quebecers, nor all French-Canadians, nor were they fighting for the Catholic religion even though many French-Canadians are Catholics.

The degree of correlation between a terrorist group and a wider religion would probably be proportional to the level of feelings in the wider religion towards the cause that the terrorists are fighting for. For instance, not everybody in the West supports Israel against the Palestinians - there are many people in the West who support the Palestinians over Israel. But how many in the Muslim world support a different ethnic/religious group over their own? That to me is an important question, which affects credibility and objectivity. If you only support your own group all the time, regardless of the circumstances or the situation, and cannot provide any examples to the contrary, then you're pretty much advertising what your biases are and what your credibility is.

Hey thanks a lot for your well-written comment.

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to portray, because I almost completely agree with your post :yesnod:

My goal in no way is to emphasize that "other people are terrorists too, so stop thinking that all Muslims are terrorists".<--That is not my point at all. I was asking people what their interpretation of terrorism is--you gave yours as one deliberately attacking innocent civilians and causing fear in the peoples' hearts.

It's true that many people associate today's terrorists with Islam (even though the acts that they are doing that we see as "terrorism" are actually against Islam), so I wanted to broaden the perspective on to what constitutes to "terrorism", but also what leads to it (more specifically the kind we are witnessing these days). Analyzing what makes a terrorist a terrorist, and what separates him or her from those things which are associated with positive things, like a freedom fighter.

 

[sanman]

It's a well-known saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

However, not all militant groups go out of their way to target vulnerable civilians - that's what's specific to acts of terrorism. Nextly, when it comes to the various schools of thought or values that militants claim to be fighting for, not all competing schools of thought are equal. Some militants are fighting for values that are unworkable - for instance, socialist systems which have been proven to be unviable basketcases. Some militants have values that require a permanent state of "revolution" - meaning that even after they have achieved "liberation" they will have to continue to be militant and under rule of the gun.

There are others who are genuinely fighting for freedom because they are themselves suffering oppression under the rule of non-viable systems which are the reason for their oppression.

Anyhow, the fact is that terrorists go out of their way to attack vulnerable innocent civilians, while real freedom fighters try to fight ethically, and only attack the institutions which are oppressing them.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Terrorist acts themselves--that is, attacking and killing innocents by your definition--are wrong. But, the problem lies somewhere else where an even bigger wrong is going on. What is at least partially responsible for this horrible action is one that is even more horrible done to these specific groups of people, or their society and nation. Most of the time we aren't told by our biased media what we are actually doing in countries we are "helping". We are almost always there for strategic, economic, military purposes, oppressing its peoples unjustly (as is implied in the word "oppress"), causing them to do things they would have otherwise never thought of. While their reactions may be extreme and indeed wrong, it is true that an even bigger wrong that has negatively affected people in the MASSES--that is, anywhere from in the thousands to the MILLIONS, has been committed.

So while the terrorists themselves are responsible and GUILTY for their actions, they are the last in the list of people/groups who have instigated terror and provoked war, and we are hidden the full and true stories virtually every time.