Terrorism: what does it mean?

Liebling:-))) · 03-06-2009, 11:48 AM

Terrorism: what does it mean?

In psychology there is a phenomenon called selective perception. We perceive Iran as a terrorist regime. But how are we different? Tancredo would nuke Mecca. Bush initiated a “shock and awe” campaign, and gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum. Giuliani is politically illiterate. What do they have in common? Their political rhetoric sounds the same as Ahmadinejad’s.

A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
–noun

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass.

Ahmadinejad didn’t actually threaten to wipe Israel off the map - his speech was mistranslated.

If we are going to judge terrorism by such standards, then Bush is a terrorist for stating that he’d like to wipe Al-Jazeera off the map

If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too.

The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror.

If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us.

Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran.

This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize.

References:

terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: terrorism definition | Dictionary.com

terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: terrorist definition | Dictionary.com

Terrorism: what does it mean? » The Truth @ The Spin Factor

You can click the link to read some links in the link, I post here.

Share your opinion on terrorism issues. You can define terrorism in your own POV or post the links to against those link, I posted here.

Come and share your discussion but please do that in respectfully.

jillio · 03-06-2009, 11:53 AM

I agree with this post completely. I have stated in threads before that those politicians that rely on their terrorist rhetoric to instill fear and support from the American people are simply playing into the well known social psychology of selctive perception. If one engages in the same tactics one labels "terrorist" in others, then one effectively lables themselves a "terrorist" as well.

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I agree with this post completely. I have stated in threads before that those politicians that rely on their terrorist rhetoric to instill fear and support from the American people are simply playing into the well known social psychology of selctive perception. If one engages in the same tactics one labels "terrorist" in others, then one effectively lables themselves a "terrorist" as well.

aka McCarthyism

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 12:03 PM

good thread! But forgive me - I have to derail your thread JUST a little bit. This has been a BIG ISSUE for me. The term "terrorist" has been loosely applied to "serious" domestic crimes when in past - the criminals were charged with the different terms such as "hate crime," "mass murder," etc... These days.... lot of people were getting arrested and charged with terrorism so that they can be harshly penalized.

That is a very sad... sad... state of our democracy... *SMH*

Liebling:-))) · 03-06-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I agree with this post completely. I have stated in threads before that those politicians that rely on their terrorist rhetoric to instill fear and support from the American people are simply playing into the well known social psychology of selctive perception. If one engages in the same tactics one labels "terrorist" in others, then one effectively lables themselves a "terrorist" as well.

Yes, that´s exactly what I found the link, support my view.

Mockingbird · 03-06-2009, 01:52 PM

The current definition (or the one in the article) is too vague and broad to actually mean anything. Almost every political state on Earth besides the carebears is likely a terrorist state if we were to consider threats of violence to be terrorism.

Personally I believe that we should abandon the term "terrorism" and begin classifying based on political/religious goals. It's ridiculous to classify al Qaeda, the Taliban, the FARC, and many other groups under the same umbrella that has been used as a political tool and buzzword for anything that actively opposes you and your principles.

EDIT: Classifications meaning such as "Drug cartel, Islamic radicals, Jihadic Islamic radicals, and etc.

jillio · 03-06-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

The current definition (or the one in the article) is too vague and broad to actually mean anything. Almost every political state on Earth besides the carebears is likely a terrorist state if we were to consider threats of violence to be terrorism.

Personally I believe that we should abandon the term "terrorism" and begin classifying based on political/religious goals. It's ridiculous to classify al Qaeda, the Taliban, the FARC, and many other groups under the same umbrella that has been used as a political tool and buzzword for anything that actively opposes you and your principles.

EDIT: Classifications meaning such as "Drug cartel, Islamic radicals, Jihadic Islamic radicals, and etc.

Agreed. But by clarifying, those who attempt to use selective perception to their political advantage could no longer do so.

shel90 · 03-06-2009, 06:11 PM

If a violence act is being committed against others for political purposes, then that's terrorism to me.

In essence, going into to war is basically terrorizing each other since attacks have been made on innocent civilians.

I wonder what about those acts of violence for religion purposes...would that be considered terrorism as well?

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

If a violence act is being committed against others for political purposes, then that's terrorism to me.

In essence, going into to war is basically terrorizing each other since attacks have been made on innocent civilians.

I wonder what about those acts of violence for religion purposes...would that be considered terrorism as well?

yes it's still terrorism on broad scale. Terrorism is when you terrorize the public for political/religious/etc. purpose.

shel90 · 03-06-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes it's still terrorism on broad scale. Terrorism is when you terrorize the public for political/religious/etc. purpose.

So is someone murdering and raping a lady considered a terrorist?

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

So is someone murdering and raping a lady considered a terrorist?

no that's just a brutal crime. Ted Kaczynski is a terrorist because of his extreme [-----]ical view - the Luddism. I'm not exactly sure what to describe his motive.... was it theological? political?

jillio · 03-06-2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

So is someone murdering and raping a lady considered a terrorist?

Well that would depend. If they were doing it as a soldier invading the country, such as some of the atrocities that occurred in Viet Nam, then the answer would be yes. The same with the rapes of women and children that are occurring in Afghanistan currently, or in South Africa.

But the rape that occurs without political motivation would not classify as terrorism.

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Well that would depend. If they were doing it as a soldier invading the country, such as some of the atrocities that occurred in Viet Nam, then the answer would be yes. The same with the rapes of women and children that are occurring in Afghanistan currently, or in South Africa.

But the rape that occurs without political motivation would not classify as terrorism.

Wouldn't that be called a "war crime" instead?

jillio · 03-06-2009, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Wouldn't that be called a "war crime" instead?

Matter of semantics. War crimes are terrorist activities. Torturing POWs is also considered to be a war crime. It is also a terrorist activity. Terrorism is criminal. Just because it occurrs during war doesn't make it any less terroristic. That is where that selective perception comes in.

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Matter of semantics. War crimes are terrorist activities. Torturing POWs is also considered to be a war crime. It is also a terrorist activity. Terrorism is criminal. Just because it occurrs during war doesn't make it any less terroristic. That is where that selective perception comes in.

but there's a very specific distinction on what defines it as "terrorism" and "war crime" in terms of legality. Is what happened at Somalia (the mass starvation) in 1990's a terrorism? Is what happened at Bosnia (mass genocide) a terrorism? is the attack on USS Cole a terrorism?

jillio · 03-06-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but there's a very specific distinction on what defines it as "terrorism" and "war crime" in terms of legality. Is what happened at Somalia (the mass starvation) in 1990's a terrorism? Is what happened at Bosnia (mass genocide) a terrorism? is the attack on USS Cole a terrorism?

Technically, yes. All of those instances employed tactics that, effectively, fall within the bounds of terrorist acts. Calling them "war crimes" is simply an attempt to minimally justify that. If one commits a war crime, then one can be easily forgiven for simply being ravaged by the stress and psychological effects of being at war. If one commits a terrorist act, then one is depraved and beyond redemption. All goes back to selective perception. Even though the behaviors are the same and are meant to acheive the same purpose (to terrorize one's perceived enemy) to change the terminology changes the way the act is perceived.

Jiro · 03-06-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Technically, yes. All of those instances employed tactics that, effectively, fall within the bounds of terrorist acts. Calling them "war crimes" is simply an attempt to minimally justify that. If one commits a war crime, then one can be easily forgiven for simply being ravaged by the stress and psychological effects of being at war. If one commits a terrorist act, then one is depraved and beyond redemption. All goes back to selective perception. Even though the behaviors are the same and are meant to acheive the same purpose (to terrorize one's perceived enemy) to change the terminology changes the way the act is perceived.

jillio · 03-06-2009, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

It might make your head spin, but that is exactly what the OP was referring to.

Babyblue · 03-06-2009, 08:18 PM

To terrorize someone is terrorism.

I guess it is how the term is being used...

Most people see it as a political term. Which is widely used nowadays.

but anyone can be terrorized by an act of violence.

As with any term or word. It can be manipulated in to many meanings or abused.

Daredevel7 · 03-06-2009, 08:36 PM

One thing for sure, to the general population, terrorism isn't the same as 10 years ago.

Babyblue · 03-06-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

One thing for sure, to the general population, terrorism isn't the same as 10 years ago.

That is for sure!!

jillio · 03-07-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

To terrorize someone is terrorism.

I guess it is how the term is being used...

Most people see it as a political term. Which is widely used nowadays.

but anyone can be terrorized by an act of violence.

As with any term or word. It can be manipulated in to many meanings or abused.

Exactly. And it is that manipulation that results in selective perception.

Jiro · 03-07-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

To terrorize someone is terrorism.

I guess it is how the term is being used...

Most people see it as a political term. Which is widely used nowadays.

but anyone can be terrorized by an act of violence.

As with any term or word. It can be manipulated in to many meanings or abused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly. And it is that manipulation that results in selective perception.

didn't that contradict your previous post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Well that would depend. If they were doing it as a soldier invading the country, such as some of the atrocities that occurred in Viet Nam, then the answer would be yes. The same with the rapes of women and children that are occurring in Afghanistan currently, or in South Africa.

But the rape that occurs without political motivation would not classify as terrorism.

jillio · 03-07-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

didn't that contradict your previous post?

No, not at all.

Jiro · 03-07-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

No, not at all.

but it does.

Reba · 03-07-2009, 12:41 PM

So all wars should be conducted without violence or threats of violence in order that the participants not be perceived as terrorists. How sweet.

Of course, it's only the more civilized countries who even care whether or not they are perceived as terrorists. The real terrorists don't give a hoot what they're called.

jillio · 03-07-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but it does.

Your selective perception is showing.

Oceanblue7 · 03-07-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes it's still terrorism on broad scale. Terrorism is when you terrorize the public for political/religious/etc. purpose.

I agree , the term terrorism is broad its all in context how you can skillfully write about terrorism.

Beowulf · 03-07-2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So all wars should be conducted without violence or threats of violence in order that the participants not be perceived as terrorists. How sweet.

Of course, it's only the more civilized countries who even care whether or not they are perceived as terrorists. The real terrorists don't give a hoot what they're called.

That's just a matter of perspective. I recall that shortly before the Cole bombing, Clinton ordered several missile strikes into Afghanistan which resulted in heavy civilian deaths. The Cole bombing was a direct result of that. Terrorism begets terrorism. But Gawd forbid we ever admit to it.

shel90 · 03-07-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So all wars should be conducted without violence or threats of violence in order that the participants not be perceived as terrorists. How sweet.

Of course, it's only the more civilized countries who even care whether or not they are perceived as terrorists. The real terrorists don't give a hoot what they're called.

Ok, so as a soldier, if u went to war, that would mean you are terrorizing the civilians where the battles are occurring at?

03-06-2009, 11:48 AM	#1 (permalink)
Liebling:-))) Sussi 7.7.86 - 18.6.09 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 30,988	Terrorism: what does it mean? Terrorism: what does it mean? In psychology there is a phenomenon called selective perception. We perceive Iran as a terrorist regime. But how are we different? Tancredo would nuke Mecca. Bush initiated a “shock and awe” campaign, and gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum. Giuliani is politically illiterate. What do they have in common? Their political rhetoric sounds the same as Ahmadinejad’s. A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy. ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist] –noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others. 3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror. 4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. –adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics. Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass. Ahmadinejad didn’t actually threaten to wipe Israel off the map - his speech was mistranslated. If we are going to judge terrorism by such standards, then Bush is a terrorist for stating that he’d like to wipe Al-Jazeera off the map If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too. The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror. If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us. Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran. This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize. References: terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: terrorism definition \| Dictionary.com terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: terrorist definition \| Dictionary.com Terrorism: what does it mean? » The Truth @ The Spin Factor You can click the link to read some links in the link, I post here. Share your opinion on terrorism issues. You can define terrorism in your own POV or post the links to against those link, I posted here. Come and share your discussion but please do that in respectfully. __________________

03-06-2009, 12:03 PM	#4 (permalink)
Jiro YOU DOMESTIC DISSENT! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 36,586	good thread! But forgive me - I have to derail your thread JUST a little bit. This has been a BIG ISSUE for me. The term "terrorist" has been loosely applied to "serious" domestic crimes when in past - the criminals were charged with the different terms such as "hate crime," "mass murder," etc... These days.... lot of people were getting arrested and charged with terrorism so that they can be harshly penalized. That is a very sad... sad... state of our democracy... SMH __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

03-06-2009, 01:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mockingbird Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA Posts: 237	The current definition (or the one in the article) is too vague and broad to actually mean anything. Almost every political state on Earth besides the carebears is likely a terrorist state if we were to consider threats of violence to be terrorism. Personally I believe that we should abandon the term "terrorism" and begin classifying based on political/religious goals. It's ridiculous to classify al Qaeda, the Taliban, the FARC, and many other groups under the same umbrella that has been used as a political tool and buzzword for anything that actively opposes you and your principles. EDIT: Classifications meaning such as "Drug cartel, Islamic radicals, Jihadic Islamic radicals, and etc. __________________ If life gives you lemons you better fucking like lemon juice. http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/

03-06-2009, 06:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
shel90 In a pink and black world Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: In the land of the free Posts: 29,617 Blog Entries: 3	If a violence act is being committed against others for political purposes, then that's terrorism to me. In essence, going into to war is basically terrorizing each other since attacks have been made on innocent civilians. I wonder what about those acts of violence for religion purposes...would that be considered terrorism as well? __________________ Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

03-07-2009, 12:41 PM	#26 (permalink)
Reba Auntie Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 24,818	So all wars should be conducted without violence or threats of violence in order that the participants not be perceived as terrorists. How sweet. Of course, it's only the more civilized countries who even care whether or not they are perceived as terrorists. The real terrorists don't give a hoot what they're called. __________________ "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." -- Sir Isaac Newton Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. --John Adams

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

03-06-2009, 11:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 37,537	I agree with this post completely. I have stated in threads before that those politicians that rely on their terrorist rhetoric to instill fear and support from the American people are simply playing into the well known social psychology of selctive perception. If one engages in the same tactics one labels "terrorist" in others, then one effectively lables themselves a "terrorist" as well.

03-06-2009, 08:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
Babyblue Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 9,052	To terrorize someone is terrorism. I guess it is how the term is being used... Most people see it as a political term. Which is widely used nowadays. but anyone can be terrorized by an act of violence. As with any term or word. It can be manipulated in to many meanings or abused.

03-06-2009, 08:36 PM	#20 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 2,145	One thing for sure, to the general population, terrorism isn't the same as 10 years ago.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode