• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Terrorism the wrong Word?

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ok so as we are constantly being reminded of by our dear President Bush, we are at war with terrorism but is calling them terrorists the right word? True Osama Bin Laden and his buddies are radical islamics but what is terrorism anyway? Terrorism is defined as such

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


but if this is true, couldn't you call our founding fathers terrorists? And before you say that our founding fathers didn't commit any crimes such as this, its not true. In fact, one founding father (whose name escapes me) actually led a mob to a representative of the English King's home, "let himself in", destroyed all his furniture. then brought him down to this area where they beat up a replica of him, and then told him the same thing would happen to him and his family if he didn't do what he was told. He did this on two seperate occasions.

Wouldn't the French resistance during WWII be considered terrorist groups? Or William Wallace (of Braveheart fame) be considered a terrorist because he opposed England? I admit that terrorism sounds a lot more "evil" but is this the correct term to use?
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Ok so as we are constantly being reminded of by our dear President Bush, we are at war with terrorism but is calling them terrorists the right word? True Osama Bin Laden and his buddies are radical islamics but what is terrorism anyway? Terrorism is defined as such

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


but if this is true, couldn't you call our founding fathers terrorists? And before you say that our founding fathers didn't commit any crimes such as this, its not true. In fact, one founding father (whose name escapes me) actually led a mob to a representative of the English King's home, "let himself in", destroyed all his furniture. then brought him down to this area where they beat up a replica of him, and then told him the same thing would happen to him and his family if he didn't do what he was told. He did this on two seperate occasions.

Wouldn't the French resistance during WWII be considered terrorist groups? Or William Wallace (of Braveheart fame) be considered a terrorist because he opposed England? I admit that terrorism sounds a lot more "evil" but is this the correct term to use?

Yes, terrorism is the correct word, and yes, the same term applies to all of the groups you mentioned. I think the fundamental difference is that the terrorists you mentioned (aside from Bin Laden & cronies) were all fighting & terrorizing for their own freedom/independence....(don't get into the debate over the french resistance with a guy named gordontravels...trust me, he doesn't listen)

Anyhow, BinLaden is fighting not for freedom, not for independance...he had a regime protecting him, and billions of dollars to play with. He is orchestrating these bombings/murders 1) because he's a megalomaniac nut-job, and 2) because he thinks it's what Allah or mohammad or whoever's in charge is telling him to do it. I guess what I'm saying is that there are different forms of "terrorism" , and maybe they should come up with a new word to distinguish the just from the un-just.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
But then what are we fighting for? If you looked at it deeply enough, couldn't we consider ourselves terrorists? I mean even if you think that what we are doing during this administration is absolutely unconditionally justified, then what about times before that? You can't deny that the U.S. has a bad history of killings of innocents.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
But then what are we fighting for? If you looked at it deeply enough, couldn't we consider ourselves terrorists? I mean even if you think that what we are doing during this administration is absolutely unconditionally justified, then what about times before that? You can't deny that the U.S. has a bad history of killings of innocents.

We're fighting in Afghanistan (not WITH Afghanistan) to rid the area of said terrorists/evil regime. They provoked us, and are currently reaping the whirlwind.

As for Iraq, I don't think it can be misconstrued as "terrorism" on our part. We're there to free a people that otherwise would have never known simple freedoms. We're giving them human rights denied to generations that have gone before them. We're avenging the 100,000 kurd civilians murdered by an evil regime

As for US History, the past is past, the future is now. Innocents are killed in every war, if you were to analyze it too deeply, at one point or another, every person on this planet could be considered a "terrorist"...except for people like Mother Theresa, and how many of those can there be?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
All though I disagree with you about most everything you said about Iraq, I believe you are correct for the most part. Not because of your points but I think I answered the question myself. The U.S. is the authority so therefore, can't be considered terrorists haha. Kinda funny, isn't it? It's only terrorism if its against you right? If we blow up something of theirs we call it 'heroic' but if they blow up something of ours, they are terrorists.

I think someone must have made up the word "terrorists" for use as propaganda sometime. Does anyone know the origins of that term?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
All though I disagree with you about most everything you said about Iraq, I believe you are correct for the most part. Not because of your points but I think I answered the question myself. The U.S. is the authority so therefore, can't be considered terrorists haha. Kinda funny, isn't it? It's only terrorism if its against you right? If we blow up something of theirs we call it 'heroic' but if they blow up something of ours, they are terrorists.

I think someone must have made up the word "terrorists" for use as propaganda sometime. Does anyone know the origins of that term?

Although I understand how you meant it...technically, you are right...What the US is doing is FAR from terrorism...

"Terrorism" - the general understanding of it, is a political tactic used to gain an upper hand when you have no power.

If we just go by dictionary terms, than ANYBODY can technically be a terrorist(referring to "coercing societies" in the definition).

Terrell Owens, wide receiver for the Philadelphai Eagles, is attempting to strong-arm his team's management to renegotiate his contract...Of course, that isn't the generally accepted form of "terrorism"...but from an incredibly wide open viewpoint, what's he doing can be twisted into the term rather easily.

I don't trust definition terms...They don't show how words can evolve to mean other things....

Now excuse me...I'm gonna go watch MTV Houses.....
 

Mancunian

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Location
Manchester, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
I don't trust definition terms...They don't show how words can evolve to mean other things....

cnredd, I've got to take exception to this comment. What are you saying? That we should redefine words already explicitly described in a dictionary to fit our own ideals?

Fin MacCool, good point. I'm an Englishman and willingly admit that my country has a history of this sort of thing. We didn't call it terrorism in the past and we don't now. We called it Imperialism and that's what it should be called now.

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
cnredd said:
I don't trust definition terms...They don't show how words can evolve to mean other things....
Mancunian said:
cnredd, I've got to take exception to this comment. What are you saying? That we should redefine words already explicitly described in a dictionary to fit our own ideals?

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Verb 1. take exception - raise a formal objection in a court of law

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take+exception

The fact that you used the phrase "take exception" proves my point...
This is not a court of law where you have raised a formal objection.

Now, of COURSE, I know what you meant...I'm not that dumb(no comments from the peanut gallery):2razz:

But see how the phrase EVOLVED into an everyday saying?...It's original intent, while still acceptable, has blossomed into more different ways of use.

I'm not saying we SHOULD change the words...I'm saying, through time, words do change. I thought I made my point when I mentioned "MTV Houses".

That's all I was saying...I didn't think it a big issue...:2wave:
 
Last edited:

Mancunian

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Location
Manchester, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Verb 1. take exception - raise a formal objection in a court of law

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take+exception

The fact that you used the phrase "take exception" proves my point...
This is not a court of law where you have raised a formal objection.

Now, of COURSE, I know what you meant...I'm not that dumb(no comments from the peanut gallery):2razz:

But see how the phrase EVOLVED into an everyday saying?...It's original intent, while still acceptable, has blossomed into more different ways of use.

I'm not saying we SHOULD change the words...I'm saying, through time, words do change. I thought I made my point when I mentioned "MTV Houses".

That's all I was saying...I didn't think it a big issue...:2wave:

- take exception : OBJECT <took exception to the remark>
- http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=take exception&query=take exception

OK, I’m not going to labour it after this post because it could get silly but the definition you chose is exclusive. ‘Take exception’ essentially means objecting. You have chosen an example of where the phrase can be used not a definition.

Anyway, me ‘taking exception’ to your comment is irrelevant to the thread. I was more interested in how you choose to define terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Is it not at least feasible for this description of terrorism to be applied to the actions of your country (and mine!)? For instance, an Iraqi could take this same description and argue that is exactly what we are doing by forcing democracy on them.

I’m asking you because of all the posts on here that I don’t agree with, yours have at least provoked some thought on my part.

Btw, what’s MTV Houses?
 

JustWonders

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course, the UN has been struggling to define "terrorism" for decades. Consider the source.

I found this article from the Dallas Morning News last month and only wonder what took them so long to figure it out.
---------------


Call Them What They Are: Those who murder Iraqi civilians are terrorists 09:02 AM CDT on Friday, July 15, 2005

Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are "resolve" and "sacrifice," especially as they relate to war.

Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word – "insurgent" – on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as "insurgents."

The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.

They drove that point home with chilling clarity Wednesday in a poor Shiite neighborhood. As children crowded around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and toys in a gesture of good will, a bomb-laden SUV rolled up and exploded.

These children were not collateral damage. They were targets.

The SUV driver was no insurgent. He was a terrorist.

People who set off bombs on London trains are not insurgents. We would never think of calling them anything other than what they are – terrorists.

Train bombers in Madrid? Terrorists.

Chechen rebels who take over a Russian school and execute children? Terrorists.

Teenagers who strap bombs to their chests and detonate them in an Israeli cafe? Terrorists.

IRA killers? Basque separatist killers? Hotel bombers in Bali? Terrorists all.

Words have meanings. Whether too timid, sensitive or "open-minded," we've resisted drawing a direct line between homicidal bombers everywhere else in the world and the ones who blow up Iraqi civilians or behead aid workers.

No more. To call them "insurgents" insults every legitimate insurgency in modern history. They are terrorists
.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ials/stories/071505dnediiraqkids.105158b.html
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Anyhow, BinLaden is fighting not for freedom, not for independance...he had a regime protecting him, and billions of dollars to play with. He is orchestrating these bombings/murders 1) because he's a megalomaniac nut-job, and 2) because he thinks it's what Allah or mohammad or whoever's in charge is telling him to do it. I guess what I'm saying is that there are different forms of "terrorism" , and maybe they should come up with a new word to distinguish the just from the un-just.



Then you havent heard him speak....thats all O.B.L. thinks he is doing is fighting for oppressed Muslims....
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Surenderer said:
Then you havent heard him speak....thats all O.B.L. thinks he is doing is fighting for oppressed Muslims....

That was my point #2. He's doing it because Allah, or Mohammad, or the Q'uran is telling him to, for all Muslims I suppose. I didn't think he was doing it for "oppressed" muslims though. Every time I've read or heard what he's saying, he's talking about how the west is too "decadent" (which i believe we are too, but would never kill anyone over it), and how it doesn't conform to the Muslim way of life, so we're all "infidels" and must die.
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Surenderer said:
Then you havent heard him speak....thats all O.B.L. thinks he is doing is fighting for oppressed Muslims....
That's what he says. He fights (hmmm. Nope. Correction: the coward lets others fight) for power and conquest, NOT for liberation, against oppression, or anything else.
If he fought to suppress oppressed muslims (and there are quite a few), he would have waged Jihad in the ME (against the Saudis, for example). Instead of that, he did what he needed to recruit an army, through 911 and knowing how the BA would respond. Now, he has an army, as Bush did EXACTLY what was expected from him by AQ. How he will use it afterwards is still to see. But it will be for power and conquest... and not for Islam, be sure of that. Islam is merely a tool in the hands of a power-hungry assassin.

Y
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
ILikeDubyah said:
That was my point #2. He's doing it because Allah, or Mohammad, or the Q'uran is telling him to, for all Muslims I suppose. I didn't think he was doing it for "oppressed" muslims though. Every time I've read or heard what he's saying, he's talking about how the west is too "decadent" (which i believe we are too, but would never kill anyone over it), and how it doesn't conform to the Muslim way of life, so we're all "infidels" and must die.




Read this then please...I dont want to spam the whole thing:


http://sl.starware.com/r?u=http://e...y=osama+bin+laden+speech&rnk=1&aff=inkt&v=102
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
epr64 said:
That's what he says. He fights (hmmm. Nope. Correction: the coward lets others fight) for power and conquest, NOT for liberation, against oppression, or anything else.
If he fought to suppress oppressed muslims (and there are quite a few), he would have waged Jihad in the ME (against the Saudis, for example). Instead of that, he did what he needed to recruit an army, through 911 and knowing how the BA would respond. Now, he has an army, as Bush did EXACTLY what was expected from him by AQ. How he will use it afterwards is still to see. But it will be for power and conquest... and not for Islam, be sure of that. Islam is merely a tool in the hands of a power-hungry assassin.

Y



But he did Wage War against those Goverments 1st.......Thats why the House of Saud hates him and thats why he hated Saddam isnt it?...9-11 (according to him) was for U.S. interaction against the Goverments he allready hated
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Surenderer said:
But he did Wage War against those Goverments 1st.......Thats why the House of Saud hates him and thats why he hated Saddam isnt it?...9-11 (according to him) was for U.S. interaction against the Goverments he allready hated
Terrorist acts attributed to AQ in Saudi Arabia are from AFTER 911.

He hates them? He's ONE of them. His father is (was?) a billionaire in SA. He USED the fact that SA accepted US troops on its soil during Iraq 1 to make terrorist attacks against them (not that he needed any arguments.. But it helps).

It would be funny if the targets weren't civilians once again.

CU
Y
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I think that the transcript that Surrender had pretty much sums it up. He does have a reason to be pissed and its just unfortunate that he feels he had to commit such an atrocity in order to make his views heard. That is what he was hoping to achieve, of course. However, fighting violence with violence isn't going to work, both for the US and Osama's crew. Look, when we interfere in middle eastern affairs, it made Osama pissed and he had a reason to be pissed. But when he blew up the WTC towers, we had reason to be pissed also, so now we can't possibly let him live but what did we do? Invade Iraq. So now instead of killing Osama and ending it there and then and then trying to get out of the middle east, we end up complicating matters even more. We're in trouble haha.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
AS far as Iraq goes. Most of what america is fighting are paortisans. They arent called that cause most americans only familir with ww2 Hollywood history...know partisans from ww2 movies where they are resistance fighters. To the occupiing forces they were Terrorists and rebeles. I doubt highly the Americans called German partisans anythiing but terrorists. But they were partisans too.

I dont use terroists much anymore as its become a buzz phrase for the war supporter. The far right that suport this war rarely debates points but ALWAYS uses such buzz phrases to try to divert your argument intoa shouting match of slogans.


Also they play lame symantic games with terroists so they can fit hussien i the category. IN reality what everybody has been talking about for the last 3 decades when they say terrorists in America is an Islamaic Fundimentalist. The sterotype of wich you see on Chuck Norris films.
 
Top Bottom