How do you define terrorism?

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Don't lump everyone in with the US.

+1

Don't want those Canadians lumped in with our great nation

 

[jdawg 5,000+ posts]

Well of course you think that.
Ask the people in the Middle East how they feel about the US being there. Ask them who the terrorists are. Ask how they feel about the last ~60+ years of US relations in that region. I object to the notion of calling anyone Islamic a terrorist, while the US is the great giver of freedom; there's a bit of cognitive dissonance there, I think.

Also, the term "American" denotes pretty much anyone from the Western world (ie. the North, Central, or Southern parts of the Americas). Don't lump everyone in with the US.

honestly all we ever do is help overthrow whoever is in charge so we can put in a president/political system that will comply with us. It backfires sometimes tho. Russia spent about 10 years fighting Afghanistan and lost. The whole time we were training them and gave them stingers, well guess what our troops are facing now.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acceptable is because a great deal more innocent people would have died if the countries had gone to war. Japan was prepared to draft women, children, seniors, or anyone who could move, and estimates of the death toll have ranged from 2-6 million. In the current landscape, that would be a bad move because it would result in retaliation rather than forfeiture.

 

[Andrew12 10+ year member]

+1
Don't want those Canadians lumped in with our great nation

Obama does.

 

[jdawg 5,000+ posts]

The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acceptable is because a great deal more innocent people would have died if the countries had gone to war. Japan was prepared to draft women, children, seniors, or anyone who could move, and estimates of the death toll have ranged from 2-6 million. In the current landscape, that would be a bad move because it would result in retaliation rather than forfeiture.

correct

wars are no longer a country against another

like japan attacked us so we attack them

its more like some small political group attacks the us OR we feel a need to intervien in some civil war that has been going on for 100 years, to more or less help out our own country.

I really wish the UN would take care of all this shit, but well, they ****. I could go on and on, but just be thankful that you are a US citizen. No other place I would want to live but here.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/patriotic.gif.b47a6e0394a3738334c387bdf79409f4.gif

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

correctwars are no longer a country against another

like japan attacked us so we attack them

its more like some small political group attacks the us OR we feel a need to intervien in some civil war that has been going on for 100 years, to more or less help out our own country.

I really wish the UN would take care of all this shit, but well, they ****. I could go on and on, but just be thankful that you are a US citizen. No other place I would want to live but here.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/patriotic.gif.b47a6e0394a3738334c387bdf79409f4.gif

I thought DD was Canadian.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

I'm reading a book in my college English class called "Rereading America" (horrible liberal book, don't waste your time). So we are talking about patriotism, terrorism, etc. The following case was brought up.
The United States was attacked on September 11th. These were acts of terrorism, pending you aren't some conspiracy theorist, so please work with me here.

This authors (Mark Hertsgaard) definition of terrorism is "Targeting innocent civilians to advance a political or military agenda."

SO, was the US attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki(sp?) with the atomic bombs acts of terrorism? By his definition, yes. By mine, no. They didn't do it out of an act of hatred, BUT we did put the Japs in concentration camps during WWII. I'm not sure how to plead my case ny giving an alternate definition of terrorism.

help? thoughts?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets chosen because of their large surrounding civilian populations. The Los Alamos target committee made the specific decision to NOT target a military site that would provide minimal civilian casualties. They wanted to have a very powerful effect on the psyche and morale of the Japanese population. By the definition you have provided this was certainly an act of terrorism.

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection
A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

http://www.lanl.gov/history/atomicbomb/pdf/Summary%20of%20Target%20Committee%20Meetings%20on%2010%20and%2011%20May%201945.pdf

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00002656---f000-.html

why do you think our own government includes "by subnational groups or clandestine agents" in their definition?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Because it's only evil if it's not the government, obviously.

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets chosen because of their large surrounding civilian populations. The Los Alamos target committee made the specific decision to NOT target a military site that would provide minimal civilian casualties. They wanted to have a very powerful effect on the psyche and morale of the Japanese population. By the definition you have provided this was certainly an act of terrorism.

x2

But anyways, everything that everything has its own definition. And if a definition is what we're after, why not make-up our own. I mean honestly, I think the DOD has no rights on the word terrorism (though it would be funny if they did). Why not do with the word 'terrorism' that is normally done with words that are in great need of a definition, deconstruct it.

I suppose the first part that is clear is the word terror. In this case it is not the actual violence that would produce the terrorism, but the causing of certain conditions in which terror is the predominant weapon.

The second part is -ism and ism has been used in a wide array of words. The fact that we are talking about politics dpesn't help. '-ism' is used to describe everything from a predjudice to a process. But I think the most pertinent -ism in this case is that of a method because we generally associate terrorism with the way in which in act is committed.

So at this point we have that terrorism is the method of using terror, assumably to acheive some end. So if I just hit my friend, for no reason, that is not terrorism. If I hit my friend so I can get money, that is not really terrorism either. If I set someone that I don't know for their money, I wouldn't call that terrorism because the person just got mugged for their money and while they were afraid, it doesn't seem the same as 'terror'. If a kill a man's wife or his dog or blow-up his pool to get money from him, I feel like that is moving closer to terrorism.

I think a clear, concise definition of terrorism is this: the methodical use of violence to instill terror in an individual or group of individuals for some socio-political/economic goal. Under this definition, I think we can point to enough morally irreprehensible acts committed by the United States Government to label them terrorists (e.g. Guantanamo Bay, Panama, Iran Contra, and really the list is endless. I once read a 15 page-long LIST of all the messed-up stuff that the US has done to acheive their goals).

Hope that helps

 

[bunkerking09 10+ year member]

boogerking what is the name of the book? I would be interested in checking it out. Not that I need a HS education, just interested in seeing what propaganda they are filling your head with.

The book is called "Rereading America". Its a compilation of essays and interviews to make you a more "critical thinker"

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

America fukn owns

You are one of my favorite people on this forum, do you know that? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[bunkerking09 10+ year member]

You are one of my favorite people on this forum, do you know that? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Mine as well. I think he would be one of my best friends in real life lol

 

[Cravingbass123]

this is quite interroresting....................

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

this is quite interroresting....................

LMFAOOOOOOOOOO!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif:laugh: