Overuse of the word "terrorist"

[Leif Roar]

Am I the only one who feels that there's gone inflation in the use of the word "terrorist"? Take this example from the New York Times about the current fightining in Iraq:

A senior administration official who was deeply involved in war planning said in an interview today that President Saddam Hussein's loyalists "fight like terrorists,"

What on earth is that supposed to mean? A terrorist, in my book, is someone who engages in act of violence against the civil population for political aims. When fighting against a regular army, even if the fight is unjust, performed in a barbaric and monstrous manner without any regard to civilian losses or the laws of war, it is not terrorism.

This example was just one that leapt out at me when browsing the papers today, but there has been a number of such misuses of the word lately and they've bothered me for a while.

If we consider the gravity of the recent times' wider use of military, law-enforcement and intelligence gathering to fight terrorism, should we not at the very least be able to expect (and demand) that those in authority are crystal clear on what they actually mean with the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism"?

 

[iain]

Haven't you heard? You're either for us, or your a terrorist.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Russia, Spain, Indonesia, Angola, Turkey, Isreal: just to name a few, are all elated that there is a war on terrorism.

These countries have for quite some time now struggled alone to quell the "uprisings" happening in their borders as groups struggle for self determination or independance.

You can bet, the British would have labelled the American's as terrorists in the late 1700s when "the colonies" decided to persue self determination and dump the King if the word existed. My dictionary gives a date of 1785-95 for the "creation" of the term terrorism. The US declared independence in 1776. This may indicate that some time passed before the word terrorism become contemporary in the English language.

It is currently convenient to these countries to say to the US, "we feel your pain!" We are brothers experiencing similar problems. We have lived with this evil within our borders!

The next couple of decades are possibly going to be filled with justifications for suppressing groups of people within these nations.

A meaningful and sober debate will need to begin to discuss this developing perspective. Nationalism is on the rise, in a post Cold War world people are scared because the enemy is not so clearly defined or recognizable. When people get scared, crap happens, and it happens a lot.

PPG

 

[Scared Chicken]

Did some looking up in a dictionnary:
Terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Terror:
a state of intense fear
violence (as bombing)

coercion:
the act, process, or power of coercing

coerce:
to restrain or dominate by force
to compel to an act or choice
to bring about by force or threat


Combine these and you get:

"the systematic use of violence (as bombing) as a means of the act, process, or power to restrain or dominate by force".

or

"the systematic use of a state of intense fear as a means to compel to an act or choice"

Ironic, isnt it

 

[Richard G]

Terrorists are terrorists. Just because we sent an army of real soldiers over to whoop their ass in their own country does not suddenly make them legitimate soldiers. They are terrorists getting their ass kicked on our terms before they can do what they do best ie. prey on innocent civilians.

 

[iain]

Terrorists are terrorists. Just because we sent an army of real soldiers over to whoop their ass in their own country does not suddenly make them legitimate soldiers. They are terrorists getting their ass kicked before they can do what they do best ie. prey on innocent civilians.

But to return briefly to the real world...

 

[Scared Chicken]

Terrorists are terrorists. Just because we sent an army of real soldiers over to whoop their ass in their own country does not suddenly make them legitimate soldiers. They are terrorists getting their ass kicked on our terms before they can do what they do best ie. prey on innocent civilians.

Your title "Critical Thinker" somehow sounds a out of place when reading posts like these.

 

[Agammamon]

Terrorists are terrorists. Just because we sent an army of real soldiers over to whoop their ass in their own country does not suddenly make them legitimate soldiers. They are terrorists getting their ass kicked on our terms before they can do what they do best ie. prey on innocent civilians.

So let me get this straight, the Al Queda "enemy combatants" were terrorists because they did not represent an "official" country. The Taliban's soldiers were terrorists because the Taliban supported terroism. And now the Iraqi soldiers are terrorists because they oppose the might of the US military?

 

[patnray]

They are soldiers, so they will have to be treated as prisoners of war if captured. But they fight "like terrorists" if they hide behind civilians or shoot from ambulances, for example.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

They are soldiers, so they will have to be treated as prisoners of war if captured. But they fight "like terrorists" if they hide behind civilians or shoot from ambulances, for example.

Terrorists are known to sacrifice their lives for a cause. This does not make their cause just, but it shows a disregard for their lives in service to that cause. Maybe he meant that the Iraqis fight like they are not afraid of dying.

Wake up call, y'all. Saddam's regime will eventually fall, but that won't be the end of the war. There will be a guerilla war that persists. Our troops will be fighting Iraqis as well as mujahideen (a.k.a. terrorists) from throughout the Muslim world who will begin streaming into Iraq. (My belief has been that they are biding their time waiting for Saddam to fall first. Al Qaida, for example, would love to see Saddam's regime fall so that they can spread their influence.)

War there won't end till the U.S. troops leave. Just like in Vietnam, we'll kill many more of them, but it won't matter. The Shi'ites in the south who are now fighting against Saddam's troops will turn their sites on the US and UK "occupiers." There will be international pressure on us to leave because of the economic consequences of the war dragging on. Guerillas will target pipelines to disrupt the flow of oil out of the country.

We'll tire of the futility of being there and we'll eventually leave, just like the USSR left Afghanistan. Iraq is another, bigger Afghanistan in the making. When we leave, the country will be splintered and will go through a period of civil war. The Islamic fundamentalists, just like the Taliban, will be the best organized force in the country and will take over most of it. (The Kurdish north will be fighting the Turks and the Iranians.) Then you will have an Islamic republic that controls what may be the world's largest oil reserves.

They'll sell that oil because Europe will need to buy it. They'll build their military. Unlike Saddam who would never attack Israel (other than paying money to the families of suicide bombers, if you can consider that an attack by Saddam rather than Palestinians who'd do it anyway), the Islamic republic that develops in Iraq may not feel so constrained.

I have been arguing for months (though the White House doesn't read this Board and doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ what anyone else thinks) that attacking Iraq will not make the US and Israel more secure, but would do just the opposite. Keep that in mind when you go to the polls in 2004 and have to decide whether to give the Boy Emperor more time to destroy our country's future.

RichardG, I recommend that you print a copy of this post. Every year or so, reread it. Let's see how "psychic" I am. Don't hate me for seeing things the way they really are. I never wanted this disaster to happen.

 

[DrBenway]

RichardG, I recommend that you print a copy of this post. Every year or so, reread it. Let's see how "psychic" I am. Don't hate me for seeing things the way they really are. I never wanted this disaster to happen.

It does you no good to be right at this point, Wayne. Turn your impressive intellect toward how best to handle post-war Iraq.

I think a temporary occupying force will be absolutely necessary. Not leaving a law enforcement structure in place for a time would be a cruel thing for the Iraqi people.

The post war war, will be a propaganda battle. How to win that war?

 

[Wayne Grabert]

It does you no good to be right at this point, Wayne. Turn your impressive intellect toward how best to handle post-war Iraq.

Good point, Doc. I think we need to do two things: 1) wake people up to what is really driving this war so that those ambitions can be contained before starting new wars; 2) figure out how (in the post-war) to minimize the damage caused by the Iraqi invasion to both Iraq and the United States. The second is a great challenge. I wonder, though, whether anyone will listen to any ideas.