5 ms·
Terrorism is psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population. It could be an expression of frustration; an act by one who doesn't care, or cares exclusivel
by pugio 11y ago
Terrorism is psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population. It could be an expression of frustration; an act by one who doesn't care, or cares exclusively and consumingly. And it is horrific, disgusting, and morally reprehensible.
The word is not merely propaganda, it is a word whose extremity exactly conveys the revulsion and moral judgement of the speaker. As with any label, you run the risk of superficiality and preoccupation with simplified narratives, but "terrorism" is NOT just propaganda, and it deliberately conveys more than "acts of violence". (A clinical term with its own problems of distancing audiences from the immediate reality.)
I wrote this because your last sentence seemed to imply something that I've noticed crop up in these kinds of discussions: the (typically Western) assumption that there is legitimacy to both sides of any conflict, and that, recognizing this, a diplomatic solution can be achieved. I've yet to see concrete evidence that this is the case. Short of deprogramming, how do you reason with a group of people brainwashed to be fundamentally unreasonable?
- awakeasleep 11y agoWas it terrorism when the US dropped the nukes on Japan? Psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population, right? Even if you agree that it was, you have to admit that is not how the history books are writte, because we don't use the propagana term "terrorist" to describe our own actions.
- bottled_poe 11y agoThings have changed a bit since then. How many ISIS members adhere to the Geneva conventions?
- acjohnson55 11y agoDoes the US?
- grandalf 11y agoExactly. The drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan are intended to make the populations of the border regions worry constantly about being fired upon. It's what terrorism looks like when you have an essentially unlimited budget and don't have to resort to crude munitions like IEDs or suicide bombers.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kiba 11y agoDropping nukes and bombing civilians could be construed as war crimes, and the penalty for such war crimes would probably be death. War criminals versus 'terrorists'. How does that sound? Is it really a propaganda term if you're a common war criminal who committed mass atrocity against civilians? Or a terrorist? Both side prosecuted bombing of population centers. They also both get away with it. Probably the reason why there wasn't prosecutions in the first place because they fear the precedence that will set.
- grandalf 11y agoThe propaganda message we're supposed to believe is that the groups doing terrorist acts are bizarrely religious and brainwashed, completely irrational, with pre-enlightenment values. I don't think there is any evidence to support that. It's a really bizarre amplification and dehumanization of the enemy... I realize this is a part of war propaganda, but it's particularly distasteful because it amplifies the environment of fear the terrorists were trying to create in the first place. The goal of any tactic in war is to break the other side's will to keep fighting. Terrorism is an effective tactic because it can usually be carried out at convenient times and doesn't require much logistics, sophistication or funding.