"Terrorism",...a term that should be equally applied to ALL.

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:46 PM
Original message

"Terrorism",...a term that should be equally applied to ALL.

Edited on Sat Jul-22-06 09:16 PM by Just Me

Yes?

If any ONE or NATION is killing innocent people,...they are guilty of "terrorism".

True?

On edit: a correction

Killing innocent civilians for a political purpose (per the USA definition)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SPKrazy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:49 PM
Response to Original message

1. No

terrorism is a tactic of attacking civilians for the purpose of terrorizing the populace

innocents killed as collateral damage is terrible, but it isn't terrorism in the classical sense.

it may be terrorizing to them.

but the terrorists are the ones that want to push Israel into the ocean, or kill as many Americans as they can, or any other group that fights to disrupt and terrorize in order to try to accomplish the ends of disrupting or terrorizing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lastknowngood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Tell that to fathers mothers sons and daughters of the dead

n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. According to your government, the aim is political, the target,...

,...innocent civilians.

Gee, our government has no fault in any of that,...mass killing of Iraqis who posed no threat to our country.

NAW!!! Our weapons are "precise" and precisely kill people who had NOTHING TO EO WITH 9/11.

Our government's aim: to install "democracy" :rofl: in Iraq. Wouldn't that constitute killing innocent citizens in order to instill a political purpose?

I know. You'll invent all sorts of creative rationalizations to "exempt" the U.S.A. from reality. I'm used to that. But, no matter the pouring of rationalizations change reality. Only sick people are pulled into sociopathology.

God, help the sick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FloridaPat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message

3. Wasn't originally applied to people who kill civilians but have no

nation? I seem to remember that definition years ago. Now it means anyone * doesn't like.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:55 PM
Response to Original message

4. Yes.

IMO. There is no justification for murder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Magistrate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message

6. As Generally Used, Ma'am

All the word "terrorism" means is "political violence the person using the term does not approve of." When a word provides information only about the person who writes or speaks it, and none about the thing it purports to denote, it is a pretty odd duck indeed, and probably best left unused entirely....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. It's a word utilized to justify aggressive imposition of injustice IMHO.

:shrug: Just my latest take on the use of the word, "terrorism" or "terrorist".

The word is USED to justify,...human horror.

I reject it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Language is as fluid as water.

My whole notion of what 'terrorism' means has changed since 2000.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. It seems the "meaning" has become that fluid.

Language remains rather constant,...how it's used to abuse is an entirely differnet matter.

Ultimately, "language" doesn't really matter, though,...if you view humanity as I do,...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #11

12. Language is a tool for communication. Constantly changing.

Something some people seem to have a very hard time with (Bush). It is also always changing to mean whatever is relevant at the time. Kinda like slang or the word kinda. Kinda like how we no longer say Sc�tan, when we stub our toe. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DELUSIONAL

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 09:06 PM
Response to Original message

8. agree -- here are some links with definitions --

I just did a google of the word "terrorism" because I am confused about the meaning.

Also this is an ENGLISH word -- there is a problem of LANGUAGE -- and of translation.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

snip

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

# There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
# Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jul-22-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. Thank you, very much. I had researched the U.S. definition of,...

,..."terrorism" but, honestly, am too tired and worn to have provided it.

Thank you, kindly, for linking the official definitions (although, I swear, I read at some time in the past a precise definition proferred by the DOJ: intentionally imposing violence upon innocent citizens for a political purpose/agenda). Of course, Bush's slave is now defining that term and, therefore, it changes at every moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:08 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.