Can somebody define this term for me? To me, terror-ism is the influencing of politics through the act of fear. With that in mind should the media be telling us to be afraid. By telling us to be afraid of terrorism aren’t they helping the terrorists accomplish what they’ve set out to do?
A friend of mine sent that question to Noam Chomsky and he responded with something along the lines of ‘The media doesn’t utilize violence in a direct form’. Some would of course argue that the images are far more powerful than the actual destruction of a building and the loss of some life, but the initial act still needs to be made.
Anyways… the US, through covert missions and mercenary contracts --by far-- exceed every other country put together in the number of terrorists acts committed outside of any recognized major war. Another fact from Noam.
The whole war on terror is the biggest act of hypocracy we’ve seen in a very very long time. No big surprise there.
Teachings of hell in Christendom and Islam, for example, are also terrorism. Imagine actually believing in that shit?
Terrorism = Using fear to exploit/control persons in an unhealthy way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Bush’s propaganda about “axis of evil”, “threaten the world”, “weapons of mass destruction”, etc., this all is meant to get people scared, so that fighting happens, and the Police-State is maintained…
I know all about that. The us failed at a coup to overthrow communist leader Enver Hoxha in 197(something). All 12 CIA members were killed in a train. My mom was in that train. The US has it’s hand in most of third world country’s asses puppeteiring whats going on. [size=75]MASTER OF PUPPETS[/size]
I don’t think it’s hypocritic as much as the true enemies are being misslabeled for who they are. This whole terrorist hunt reminds me of the 1950’s communist craze, when nobody knew who or what made a person a communist. They only knew they were the enemy. I know there are people who are against America. I would like to see them labeled for who they are. Call them something other than Terrorist. That term is too broad. What makes a terrorist? Hatret for the US? If so Detrop should top FBI’s list.
I think the US is being played, only this time its not by some lowlevel govt. official like senator mccarthy. This time its being played by the fucking president.
Nah, worse. The President is getting played
Which is it. OG? The Pres is an evil puppetmaster at the heart of every dark conspiracy on Earth or he’s getting played? Consistency, man- consistency! 
It’s hard for me to consistently take everything as a joke.
You’re doing fine so far. 
Yes, as are the hyperbolic and incompetent reactions of western governments. ‘We will not allow the terrorists to affect our way of life’ they say, while creating some of the most wide-ranging legislation in history to ‘deal with the terrorist threat’. And while changing the face of airports security (which directly affects the way of life of millions of airport users), and while shooting innocent people 8 times in the head despite this being the opposite of what you do with suspected suicide bombers, and raiding people’s houses and shooting them and beating them and arresting and interrogating them despite little to no proof of wrongdoing, and while lying about WMD as an excuse to invade the Middle East.
Err…I think a terrorist would have to be someone who aims to instigate widespread fear through violence or the threat thereof.
I wouldn’t say the media is committing terrorist acts, therefore, because it isn’t being violent, although it doesn’t seem rational to aim to make people unreasonably afraid, as the media, government, and politicians seem to try to do. But this isn’t the same as terrorism, not exactly; it just pursues the same goals. On the other hand, the government’s failed “shock and awe” strategy could easily be paraphrased to “terrorize”, especially considering the current trends of our “war.”
Dan~“:
Terrorism = Using fear to exploit/control persons in an unhealthy way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Bush’s propaganda about “axis of evil”, “threaten the world”, “weapons of mass destruction”, etc., this all is meant to get people scared, so that fighting happens, and the Police-State is maintained…”
K: after reading wikipedia, I can say that might be one of the
better defination of terrorism I have seen. And dan’s point about
bush’s propaganda is right on. Good job dan.
Kropotkin
meep.
i’ve always liked the military’s definition. it was very similar to the current fbi’s:
interestingly enough, the dept of defense includes mention of “intent.” just to cover their pre-emptive-loving strikes.
the common definitions all surround targeting civilians in order to change policy. terrorism works. especially for the people that are doing it since they typically do not have the resources to fight any other way and win. if you change the view of the civilians, you change the view of the gov’t.
as for the ‘terror’ aspect, that comes from the fear of it being against you, a civilian, at any time and any place, versus JUST against a military unit. no warning. no safe areas, nothing. it makes it more personal. the more personal it is the more civilians will be inticed to get involved. terrorism’s purpose is not just to cause fear. it has needs to change policy otherwise it is pointless. no terrorist kills for the sake of killing.
I think this is a reasonable definition.
Where exactly does the DoD insert “intent” into its definition? Just curious.
Perhaps, if we examine some of the results of these acts of “terrorism” maybe this might shed some light on what terrorism is?
Let me see:
The French Revolution
The American revolution
The Russian Revolution
The Communists in China
The French resistance in Vichy France
Indian Independance (also the partitioning of India and Pakistan, although it may be argued that a state, namely the British one, had a hand in that one.)
The creation of the state of Isreal
Oh yeah, don’t forget Nelson Mandela (I never miss a chance to plug the names of notorious terrorists.)
Actually, upon further reflection, this doesn’t seem to clear up anything sorry my bad. It would seem that the current “Islamofascism” is simply part a long tradition, which includes the establishment of democracy itself, which holds that men will kill if they can’t get what they want through other channels.
while i would not agree with every example given by Trotter, i do think it hits on the important point that terrorism is not black and white. from what i can see, it is a term used for resistance efforts that we do not agree with. since nearly every military action will have some sort of civilian casualties or effect the civilians in one way or another, we can refer to any of them as acts of terrorism. common definitions restricts the usage to those groups resisting our actions and influences. it has typically been reserved for those groups that we want to portray in a negative light. used to give reference to guerilla warfare where innocents are tortured, raped and beaten for pleasure.
There are two ways to spin terrorism, either the government is not doing enough to stop it, or the government is using it as an excuse to oppress the people and rescind their civil rights.
Either way the government will lose credibility.
The CIA used both methods with great success from the 50s into the 80s all over the world. The first to shore up dictatorial control, the second to remove it. All you need is the right spin.