What qualifies in you own definition as Terrorism?
To me terrorism is the use of psychological, physical, economic, and any means of "force" through terror to achieve a political goal. Also it is a form a bargaining when no conventional options are possible this includes war.
You are not supposed to use a form of the word you are defining in the definition. For example, I should not say that the definition of running is what you do when you run.
You are correct. Any act of terrorism has a goal in mind other than the immediate destruction the perpetrator is doing. IOW, if the Ft. Hood incident was not terrorism, it’s just that the guy flipped out and shot a bunch of his compatriots. It doesn’t matter if it scared you or not. If it is truly terrorism, it will be shown (in Hassan’s trial) that Hassan had terrorist connections, and that this act was premeditated in order to frighten people into doing something Hassan and others want them to do. It must have a political purpose to be properly called terrorism.
Terrorism is not a definition, it is a violent act designed to inflict terror. It doesn’t have to have the goal of achieving a political end. Puzzle games tell you to fill in the dots.
The basic dictionary definition is violent acts which are intended to create fear. I hate using the word because it has such a broad definition. Why should I label one group of people as terrorists, or one person when technically they are all over the world?
being a terrorist, meaning to cause terror, whatever it may be. Muslims are terrorists nor more than the christians like Jim Jones the people who ran the church in Waco Texas, the people who had the inquisition, the salem witch hunts, the westboro church… should I keep on naming?
Another interesting way of looking at this is not by focusing on the act of violence that is employed to scare people but to the act of disseminating the scene via TV or other means which actually scares the many more people that are not directly affected by the violent act.
Imagine someone plants a bomb in a mall to advance a political agenda and kills a few people. That’s a violent act. It is also a terrorist act in so far as the people who witnessed the event are naturally scared by it. But if the rest of the country never hears or reads or sees it, the rest of the country will not be negatively affected by it or be terrorized by it. It still is a violent act but only with the power to terrorize the local community.
So all acts of violence, including terrorist violence, might not be so terrifying if people don’t know about them. All I am pointing at is that terrorism has also a lot to do with informing people about it. The less people are informed the less they might feel terrorized by it.
I am not suggesting censorship, I am just explaining an interesting aspect of the phenomenon,
War does not qualify as terrorism. War is declared and it is open. There is certainly strategy but the intent of war is not to create terror. It is the domination of one side over another and libs should look at how well we have treated countries we’ve been at war with AFTER we won. No other country has our record. Terrorism has one goal. To install fear by any means necessary. Even war has rules which are things like not using children, not purposely attacking civilians (though they sometime are caught in the way) and not using churches as shelter. Terrorists have no rules
If you like this blog please take a second and subscribe to my rss feed
Comments: 19 comments
All the Islamic fields that are marked with REQ must be filled when searched for
Muhammad Terrorist Pig
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
muslims killing innocent people
brutal
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
DNC terrorist
Watch Fox news the only real news!
Shovel Ready
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
You are not supposed to use a form of the word you are defining in the definition. For example, I should not say that the definition of running is what you do when you run.
Polilical conundrum...
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
To bring Terror to the people, which s h it head in Fort Worth did he is a Muslim extremest terrorist.
Not afraid to say it.
Anthony W
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Nice question Spicoli, did you skip English class today?
iamct01
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Any attack on a group just because they are part of the group.
☻ß
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
That’s right. And through Islam one can find an avenue to justify it.
Gen. Pershing solution
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Terrorist Hasan and anyone like him.
Live to Fish
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Acts of violence against a group of people for a political purpose.
iris054
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
You are correct. Any act of terrorism has a goal in mind other than the immediate destruction the perpetrator is doing. IOW, if the Ft. Hood incident was not terrorism, it’s just that the guy flipped out and shot a bunch of his compatriots. It doesn’t matter if it scared you or not. If it is truly terrorism, it will be shown (in Hassan’s trial) that Hassan had terrorist connections, and that this act was premeditated in order to frighten people into doing something Hassan and others want them to do. It must have a political purpose to be properly called terrorism.
BO the Magic Jeep
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Terrorism is not a definition, it is a violent act designed to inflict terror. It doesn’t have to have the goal of achieving a political end. Puzzle games tell you to fill in the dots.
Warren T
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
MAJ HASAN’S ACTIONS AT FORT HOOD
Summer
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
The basic dictionary definition is violent acts which are intended to create fear. I hate using the word because it has such a broad definition. Why should I label one group of people as terrorists, or one person when technically they are all over the world?
NuklearBastard
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
being a terrorist, meaning to cause terror, whatever it may be. Muslims are terrorists nor more than the christians like Jim Jones the people who ran the church in Waco Texas, the people who had the inquisition, the salem witch hunts, the westboro church… should I keep on naming?
brown9500.v8
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I think, as the name implies, the populous should be "terrorized".
Just pissing people off doesn’t qualify.
Charbel
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Did they call that Catholic guy that terrorise people at his work in Florida a "terrorist"?
Zahavah
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Terrorism is an act of violence or terror to achieve a political goal … it’s a method
thinkaloo
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Another interesting way of looking at this is not by focusing on the act of violence that is employed to scare people but to the act of disseminating the scene via TV or other means which actually scares the many more people that are not directly affected by the violent act.
Imagine someone plants a bomb in a mall to advance a political agenda and kills a few people. That’s a violent act. It is also a terrorist act in so far as the people who witnessed the event are naturally scared by it. But if the rest of the country never hears or reads or sees it, the rest of the country will not be negatively affected by it or be terrorized by it. It still is a violent act but only with the power to terrorize the local community.
So all acts of violence, including terrorist violence, might not be so terrifying if people don’t know about them. All I am pointing at is that terrorism has also a lot to do with informing people about it. The less people are informed the less they might feel terrorized by it.
I am not suggesting censorship, I am just explaining an interesting aspect of the phenomenon,
optimusdad65
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
War does not qualify as terrorism. War is declared and it is open. There is certainly strategy but the intent of war is not to create terror. It is the domination of one side over another and libs should look at how well we have treated countries we’ve been at war with AFTER we won. No other country has our record. Terrorism has one goal. To install fear by any means necessary. Even war has rules which are things like not using children, not purposely attacking civilians (though they sometime are caught in the way) and not using churches as shelter. Terrorists have no rules
Leave a reply