It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War on terrorism, who is the enemy?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
We in the west has declared war on terrorism, so to find out who our enemies are, we must first understand, how terrorism is defined
...It turns out, that aint a easy thing to do...


There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3]

Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[4] These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[5]



A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[7] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".[8]



As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.[9][10]


Wiki

So there is a lot of different definitions of the term "terrorism", which makes it very hard to know who the enemy are?
The word Terrorism, is not necessary defined the same way the law would define terrorism, so how is the word terrorism defined?


ter·ror·ism (tĕr′ə-rĭz′əm)
n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.


terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized


Source

Terrorism, is the act of terror, ok, so lets take a look on how terror is defined:


[ter-er]
noun
1.
intense, sharp, overmastering fear:
to be frantic with terror.
2.
an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror:
to be a terror to evildoers.
3.
any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4.
violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
5.
Informal. a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant.


source

So terror is something that gives you fear
The definition i learned in school, was something like this:
A terrorist = Someone/something that uses fear, to accomplish political or religous goals
but that would include everyone that uses the phrase "or else...", almost every politican, says we have to do things a certain way, or else our country is going to hell. Even the church says you have to do things the right way, or you go to hell...

So great minds of ATS, how would you define terrorism? and shouldnt we have a more clear definition of terrorism, if we are at war with it?

Anyways, its something to think about, hope you enjoyed the reading

How FBI defines terrorism


edit on 14 10 2015 by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
By having no clear definition means THEY can call anyone they dont like a terrorist.

So, the definition of terrorist is : Anyone TPTB dont like.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I would agree that a terrorist is a person or persons that use acts of terror to intimidate opponents for their own political gain.

Then an act of terror would be an act that is meant to cause extreme fear and panic in the general public.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
By having no clear definition means THEY can call anyone they dont like a terrorist.

So, the definition of terrorist is : Anyone TPTB dont like.


Would that be an act of terrorism? To threathen people to behave, or label them as terrorists?

TPTB, have no real power, without the use of fear

Behave or go to jail, thats the use of fear right there - is laws an act of terrorism then?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I would agree that a terrorist is a person or persons that use acts of terror to intimidate opponents for their own political gain.

Then an act of terror would be an act that is meant to cause extreme fear and panic in the general public.


but can we scale it like that, and say only extreme use of fear and panic, is real terrorism?

Most of us, have properly, at some point in time, used scare tactics for personal gain, so where do we cross the line??



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

If the US does it, it's freedom fighting.

If anyone else does it, it's terrorism.

And they are trying to say they don't have a definition of terrorism. The FBI and CIA are well aware of the definition.

Same can be said of torture. When the US tortures it's justified. When anyone else tortures it's vilified.


edit on 14-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I would say that it was something done to cause the 'general public' fear,rather than particular people. If you are targeting a group say,or a person.Or maybe that person's family to gain something,that would not be terrorism. But something like the Boston marathon where there is no certain group or person you are targeting,just using it to cause fear and panic.That would be a terrorist act.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

"The war on terror" more like terror by war.
Terrorism is at present an illusive enemy the establishment uses to keep the citizens in a state of permanent fear and is an excellent tool for eradicating civil liberties by slow incremental totalitarian policies.

There are of course real terrorists, I am currently living in a part of the World whereby I have to belligerent to the threat of being kidnapped by Muslim separatists due to my appearance of being a foreigner .



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join