Alright... but by calling everything terrorism does it not strengthen actual terrorist... crazy man bombs a school because the color offended him... point for the terroist... and people happily give up rubbing alcohol... gas leak is mistaken for a bomb and blows up a school ... point on for terrorist and police and dogs are walking the halls of schools daily.... al jaheeb decides he wants more virgins to break in and blows up a school... regardless of the reason the school is leveled... but if all are labeled terrorist attacks society will go on a witch hunt stripping freedoms and killing people left right and center... we are already doing this... and the only way to stop it is to truly identify and name the actions as they are... mass murder, horrible incident, terrorist attack...
I am not always comfortable with the "we did it claim" without some evidence... bomber saying it, ties found, ect... too easy after the fact for a group to claim am action just to booSt their organization's moral and strength
who is calling everything terrorism?
the classical definition of terrorism was fairly simple.
-a tactic used to spread terror with the aim to influence, or pressure a government.
im not sure how that translates to everything is terrorism.
it seems rather specific
if that crazy man bombed a school bus because he was offended by its color, and wanted to influence the gov to ban that color being used on school buses. id argue indeed that is a terrorist act.
what else could it be?
a friendly hello?
a gas leak obviously doesn't meet the definition of terrorist, if it was accidental, but if humans purposely caused it to make a statement by causing death and destruction then it sure would be classed terrorist.
as for france first question one should ask is
has any terror been spread from the attack\?
if the answer is no then move along.
if the answer is yes then the next question is was the motive for the attack for political gain?
society or governments actions in response is a different issue then the actual terrorist attack.
not every society goes one witch hunt, France most certainly has not went on a witch hunt given the stacks of bodies the last year left there, besides hololands scary finger wagging besides...
ive seen no witch hunt, have you?
france has truly identified who caused the mass murder in paris, they even have caught some of them. did truly identifying those responsible stop future attacks?
clearly no. their is far more to it then simply identifying those who cause the attacks. identifying is one part.
im not sure what the issue is with a group after the fact is claiming responsibility for actions.
how does that in any way at all negate the action to the responsibility.
the tactic of terrorism means your not going to play in the rules. why expect old rules of chivalry and "meet and greet the enemy, state names, show off your nice threads so they know who did it to them" ..will always hold when the tactic itself demonstrates an ability to act outside conventions of what is considered proper and what is not?
movements especially these days can easily gain converts, by a click of a mouse...
does that translate into those converts who do kill for their cause not being terrorist because they.
1)never had any training though left loads of dead
2)never passe dpr muster to be a spokesman for a terrorist group though left loads of dead
where has the idea ever came from that a person who kills for a cause has to be somehow truly initiated into a group of that cause to be used to inflict casualties on the enemy?
half the shit we pulled as anarchist we never claimed responsibility for, does that mean we didnt do it?
no
it means we didnt want to do the cops jobs for them...
simple as that..
were we terror of course not.
we didn't use that tactic. it is a tactic. thats why a war ie the war on terrorism can never win.
u cant win wars against tactics. tactics are tactics.
its as old as war. its nothing new. the word is coined in the 20th century the idea has been used since we have been killing each other since we left the caves...
whether its kill and spread terror to he cave man boss or killing stacks of innocents on a promenade in nice...
if the tactic used is to influence a gov or its polices by the spread of terror, then it is classed terrorist.
was tar and feathering and murdering innocents during the american revolution an act of terror?
if you asked americans they will mostly state no
if you ask Canadians or bits they would answer mostly yes
was nuking cities full of innocents terrorism?
if the Americans would of lost it sure of been classed such
winners arent terrorist..(neat trick uh)
tactics will change in their application. its no longer the 70s.
different monsters now.
the traditional groups who used the western idea of warning time given, the taking of prisoners..negations..so on..
thats long gone..
the application of the tactic has changed.
doe that mean the tactic is no longer terrorism?
interesting question
