What Exactly IS a Terrorist? -- The War on Terror is Confusing.

Could there be a more confusing and GENERAL label than terrorist?

One definition is often far from another, usually depending on who is doing the defining.

One of the more frequent definitions I was able to find is; "A person or group who uses violent acts to achieve a set political goal".

Now, if you accept that definition; Wouldn't any country who invades another to further a political agenda be a terroristic one? Personally, I don't feel that the average American is a terrorist. Our "leaders" however, make me wonder about them.

How exactly does a nation morally fight a "war on terror" using terroristic means? Shouldn't a logical "war on terror" be an "educational" war? Or, in other words, a process of turning people away from violence through teaching? What makes this "war on terror" that we currently have anything more than just a typical "war"?

What, if anything, is this "war on terror" accomplishing but CREATING more "terrorists" and filling the pockets of the elite?

Are we truly accomplishing anything that will do anything BUT put us, the American citizens, in harms way in the future?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how our military invading a country suddenly makes that country's occupants terrorists. What exactly have they done to give them the title? Fight back? Isn't that what you are supposed to do in a battle type sitation?

I don't know, the whole premise just confuses me. I don't understand the logic behind it.

Oh yea, how exactly does one "win" a war on terror? Just the title alone sounds to me more like a job for a therapist. Do we just kill and/or arrest them all? Would we win then? Is it even remotely possible to win this "war" of ours?

Or is this just another "war on drugs"? A "war" in which our government is fighting against the "enemy" they are responsible for?

It all just seems really fishy to me. Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to get the whole "terrorist" deal.

Or maybe the Iraqis and Iranians are just evil for trying to fight back? Is that it?


I don't know, it's all so confusing.

Jasn

There is no 'typical' war any more, perhaps there never was.

As to who the 'terrorist' actually is it would depend on which side you're looking at it from and covert action to control another nation's sovereignty/economy for your own benefit would be seen as a form of subtle terrorism to some cultures. Admittedly not as 'in your face' as dropping bombs and invading but just as effective and sufficient to eventually elicit an extreme response as we've seen.

The convenience of the confusion surrounding the definition of "terrorist" is that almost anyone can be one, at the discretion of a selected few.
One of the obvious parts of the definition is, obviously, that if you explode a bomb that kills people, you are a terrorist. Unless it's delivered by an aircraft.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
One of the more frequent definitions I was able to find is; "A person or group who uses violent acts to achieve a set political goal".

Sounds like the war in Iraq...



[edit on 28/10/07 by NuclearPaul]

one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter

Originally posted by SimiusDei
What exactly is a terrorist?

Here - THIS site will educate you.

Originally posted by urbandeadite
one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter

:shk: That quote is so in style but really just so .... :shk:

See the above referenced site. There is no confusion. The insurgents are terrorists. Even the master-terrorist UBL recently scolded them for their terrorism against fellow muslims.

It's confusing because it is a false reality, initiated from engineered machinations and the rest we collectively create as we move forwards in time.

Recent examples of this are the California fires being blamed on Al Qaeda and the national papers in the UK saying a couple of kids playing soldiers in a forest are using 'Al Qaeda' techniques.

Hell, even a teenager who had a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook on his laptop is accused of possessing material for terrorist purposes.

People don't look any further for truth, because they simply accept what they are told as the truth with no need for further explanation or investigation.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Nice site. As so many of your ilk like to say, "Do you have a RELIABLE source for that information?" haha. Sorry, I had to.

While I'm no big fan of muslims (or any religious sect actually, religion is of the devil haha), I'm also not a fan of "propaganda" driven websites, no matter what direction they happen to slant in.

There is no doubt that there are some evil arse muslims out there, but hey, two wrongs don't make a right eh?

I happen to agree with one of the previous posters in saying that the term "terrorist" is very generic and can apply to ANYONE.



Can I ask you a question? (I promise this isn't meant as an insult) Do you make a habit of just posting generic responses with nothing to back them up? And how can you say there is no confusion when the term seems to confuse quite a few people.


Jasn

EDIT TO ADD: Which insurgents are you referring to? Theirs or ours?

[edit on 28-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

reply to post by SimiusDei


A terrorist is someone who doesn't do as they are told when they are told and who aren't as the Man wants them to be!

Now, get back to your 9-5, get on with that mortgage, spend your evenings glued to the television, vote in a partizan manner rather than with logic, don't argue, don't ask questions, don't get mad if we kill your family, and don't you dare listen to what anyone but us tells you about the way the world works, consume, fall victim to false idols..... you.... you leftist freedom hating terrorist sympathizing godless troublemaking LIBERAL you....

But seriously, this is a good question. From what I have seen, I would define a terrorist as someone who specifically targets civillians, whereas a guerilla is someone who targets the government/military structure of their enemy.

Which, I guess, would make many people carrying weapons in Iraq right now terrorists, regardless of whether they are sunni or shia, or insurgent or coalition.

Certainly makes most intel agencies and spec ops groups carrying out false flag ops terrorists doesn't it? And what is Blackwater, considering their long history of violence? A contract-based terrorist group? And if all these are terrorists, then surely our governments are sponsering, ordering, and/or advocating terrorism?

The most up to date definition of a terrorist seems to be, any person or organisation the USA deems to be totally opposite in ideals and goals for society....

The US has pretty much stuck with this definition, look at the groups it has on its terrorist organisation list...

Hamas ? Are you kidding me ? Democratically elected government...How do you honestly declare a democratically elected government a terrorist organisation ?

I thought the US was pro democracy....what a joke...

Its democracy on the USA's terms or nuthin....Simple as that...And as Rome fell, the US will fall in the most spectacular destruction of a society the world has ever or will ever see...

And that to me is sad, actually....75% of the US population doesn't deserve this...The 25% who do represent the current administration and its hangers on and anyone else who support these people do deserve it...

Honestly...Is it worth risking the destruction of your empire when those who oppose what is going on 3/1 ??

I hope the people of the US make some good decisions in the coming years...The rest of humanity depends on it...

Peace

reply to post by Terran Blue


I'm a LIBERAL? Bah, that's borderline slander amigo...better watch yourself hahahah


I'm about as conservative as they come (aside from the abortion issue -- while I disagree with it, it's not MY choice). Just because I do NOT support this government does not make me a liberal.

Of course, I am taking your comments in jest, take mine the same.


I agree that the definition changes to fit the "villain of the day", I just can't get why so many others haven't caught on.


Jasn

reply to post by Rilence


The USA of today, I would think, fits more properly under the "Imperialist" title. Our republic is failing as a result of our apathy. It's disgusting.


Jasn

i think them ore important question is what terrorism is...because that's how we label a terrorist, someone who commits acts of terrorism

for now it seems that the definition of terrorism is something arbitrarily assigned by washington instead of something concrete.

reply to post by SimiusDei


Yes Jasn, it is...and to me, that is really sad...I remember as kid reading books about space and science and stuff and the moon landing and the voyager missions and the viking missions to mars...

I loved the USA...cos they constantly fed my brain with stuff to think of...

This was is the golden years after the Vietnam war mostly...

But with the first gulf war, it all changed...As a young adult, I had to ask myself, why ?

Why would a nation that has given the world such great things embark on a course to destroy any other nation that disagreed with it...

That made me sad, and I've been sad about that for a long time now...I don't believe the US will take away my sadness over this,ever...

The US exists for perhaps 20-25% of its population, the rest, and the rest of the world outside the US count for zero...

That is so very sad to me...Having watched 9/11 happen live on TV over two days without sleep, to drive to the US consulate and leave flowers and write in the books was an honour for me...

I really believed the US would take a careful morally thought out path with regard to dealing with this tragedy....

It makes me sad I was so wrong...

The fact is, the US is the GREATEST terrorist nation on the planet...It refuses to yield to the rule of international law, it changes the rules of engagement to suit its self...

To me, that sniffs of an empire which is going to crumble in a big way the next 20 yrs or so...

And as I've said previously, most of you guys do not deserve what is going to happen...

So very, very sad

I would have to say the word terrorist comes from the word terror which means it's someone who has commited an act which causes terror, to keep things simple. For example, when an airplane flew into the world trade center the people behind that were terrorist. I can understand why they would suspect somebody who had the Anarchists Cookbook. Im not saying everyone who owns this book is or has intentions to be a terrorist, but it is a book about how to make variouse kinds of explosives. So you do have to question someones intentions on why they would like to know how to make explosives.

That's as far as im going to get into this for now.

Styki

Originally posted by SimiusDei
As so many of your ilk like to say, "Do you have a RELIABLE source for that information?" haha.

My 'ilk' eh? :shk: You poor thing. You have my pity.

The site I posted is very reliable. It's the truth. Deal with it.

Do you make a habit of just posting generic responses with nothing to back them up?

My response was fine. And yes, I posted RELIABLE backup.

how can you say there is no confusion when the term seems to confuse quite a few people.

There is no confusion. There are only people who want to 'blame America first' and who don't want to see the truth that the insurgents ARE TERRORISTS. The Iraqi people agree with that statement and even master terrorist UBL had to smack 'em down this week in his latest propaganda tape.

Ummmm...how about this: An Islamic extremist in the ilk of the guys who attacked the US on9/11. Those were terrorists and so are the guys who are like them and aspire to do as they did.

See, that was pretty easy eh?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

how can you say there is no confusion when the term seems to confuse quite a few people.

There is no confusion. There are only people who want to 'blame America first' and who don't want to see the truth that the insurgents ARE TERRORISTS. The Iraqi people agree with that statement and even master terrorist UBL had to smack 'em down this week in his latest propaganda tape.

The confusion, as I see it, stems from the fact that some will not accept any definition of terrorists that cannot be applied to the US.

Terrorists intentionally target innocent civilians. They also hit military targets for no military reason.

A terrorist is anyone who does-says-paints-prints-possesses anything that someone of higher authority objects to.
The legal definition is so broad, that anyone can be accused, for any imagined infraction.
I have yet to figure out how the brothel in Nevada violated the patriot act, but having a vivid imagination---------------!
But I digress.