6 ms·

Terrorism is a military tactic, saying "you are a terrorist" is about as meaningless as saying: "You are a right flank", "You are a military operation" and "You

by maeon3 15y ago

Terrorism is a military tactic, saying "you are a terrorist" is about as meaningless as saying: "You are a right flank", "You are a military operation" and "You are a deployed F16 bomber". It's this double speak and new-think that is damaging our country, not the demand for basic human rights.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
JadeNB 15y ago
> Terrorism is a military tactic, saying "you are a terrorist" is about as meaningless as saying: "You are a right flank", "You are a military operation" and "You are a deployed F16 bomber". While I agree that the main post is ridiculous, I'm not sure that grammatical issues are the real reason why. We've long since accepted calling someone a guerilla who engages in guerilla warfare; why should calling some a terrorist who engages in terrorism be any less valid? (Or perhaps the term 'guerilla' isn't valid either?) Or perhaps the point you're making is a more subtle one, that being a terrorist is not a label that is permanently affixed: i.e., that it's reasonable to say to someone "you are a terrorist" precisely to mean "you are engaging in terrorism at this moment", just as you might say "you are a flanker" (or whatever) precisely to mean "you are on the right flank at this moment"?
adrianN 15y ago
A terrorist is someone who employs the military tactic of terrorism, just like a guerilla is a practitioner of guerilla tactics. I don't see the problem here.
- maeon3 15y ago
  The problem is that terrorism is a strategy that America also uses in war. Calling the terrorists evil because they blow up civilians in another country is calling war evil. Its the double-think and hypocritical nature of the word I don't like. What makes the planes into the world trade center more evil than the hundreds of thousands of bombs used to blow up suspected enemy hideouts in iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?
  - RexRollman 15y ago
    I think it is all about intention. Intending to kill innocent civilians is different than accidentally killing them while trying to target enemy combatants. (Of course, these differences mean nothing to those who were wrongly killed.)
    - ttt_ 15y ago
      >> I think it is all about intention. Isn't the US the only country to have ever used nuclear warfare? Therefore willingly and knowingly killing countless innocent civilians?
      - gee_totes 15y ago
        True, but I wouldn't consider this terrorism. For me, the distinction between terrorism and general warfare is that terrorist acts are carried out by non-state actors (or people acting as proxies for a state). The war in Afganistan, the bombing of Japan, etc. was carried out clearly and explicitly by the United States government. This is why I find the phrase 'terrorist government' to be absurd.
        DasIch 15y ago
        Terrorism, initially, described acts performed by a government. Interesting that people consider this to be absurd nowadays.
        tkahn6 15y ago
        Source?
        ttt_ 15y ago
        >> "Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term
aqme28 15y ago
One can legitimately be a terrorist and commit terrorism. The problem is that the popular definition of terrorism is so nebulous as to be useless. We've charged as terrorists people who have attacked soldiers stationed in a foreign invader's military base (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/10/the_real_definition_of_terrorism/ http://www.salon.com/2011/12/10/the_real_definition_of_terro... and http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000860.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000860.html for examples). Those are purely military targets attacked in wartime... At the same time, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/breivik-not-terrorist-insane-murderer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/breivik-not-terr...
georgieporgie 15y ago
From Wikipedia: In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" Clearly, a terrorist is one who commits, or seeks to commit, an act of terrorism.

by maeon3 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

JadeNB 15y ago

> Terrorism is a military tactic, saying "you are a terrorist" is about as meaningless as saying: "You are a right flank", "You are a military operation" and "You are a deployed F16 bomber". While I agree that the main post is ridiculous, I'm not sure that grammatical issues are the real reason why. We've long since accepted calling someone a guerilla who engages in guerilla warfare; why should calling some a terrorist who engages in terrorism be any less valid? (Or perhaps the term 'guerilla' isn't valid either?) Or perhaps the point you're making is a more subtle one, that being a terrorist is not a label that is permanently affixed: i.e., that it's reasonable to say to someone "you are a terrorist" precisely to mean "you are engaging in terrorism at this moment", just as you might say "you are a flanker" (or whatever) precisely to mean "you are on the right flank at this moment"?

adrianN 15y ago

A terrorist is someone who employs the military tactic of terrorism, just like a guerilla is a practitioner of guerilla tactics. I don't see the problem here.

maeon3 15y ago
The problem is that terrorism is a strategy that America also uses in war. Calling the terrorists evil because they blow up civilians in another country is calling war evil. Its the double-think and hypocritical nature of the word I don't like. What makes the planes into the world trade center more evil than the hundreds of thousands of bombs used to blow up suspected enemy hideouts in iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?
- RexRollman 15y ago
  I think it is all about intention. Intending to kill innocent civilians is different than accidentally killing them while trying to target enemy combatants. (Of course, these differences mean nothing to those who were wrongly killed.)
  - ttt_ 15y ago
    >> I think it is all about intention. Isn't the US the only country to have ever used nuclear warfare? Therefore willingly and knowingly killing countless innocent civilians?
    - gee_totes 15y ago
      True, but I wouldn't consider this terrorism. For me, the distinction between terrorism and general warfare is that terrorist acts are carried out by non-state actors (or people acting as proxies for a state). The war in Afganistan, the bombing of Japan, etc. was carried out clearly and explicitly by the United States government. This is why I find the phrase 'terrorist government' to be absurd.
      - DasIch 15y ago
        Terrorism, initially, described acts performed by a government. Interesting that people consider this to be absurd nowadays.
        tkahn6 15y ago
        Source?
        ttt_ 15y ago
        >> "Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term

aqme28 15y ago

One can legitimately be a terrorist and commit terrorism. The problem is that the popular definition of terrorism is so nebulous as to be useless. We've charged as terrorists people who have attacked soldiers stationed in a foreign invader's military base (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/10/the_real_definition_of_terrorism/ http://www.salon.com/2011/12/10/the_real_definition_of_terro... and http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000860.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000860.html for examples). Those are purely military targets attacked in wartime... At the same time, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/breivik-not-terrorist-insane-murderer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/breivik-not-terr...

georgieporgie 15y ago

From Wikipedia: In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" Clearly, a terrorist is one who commits, or seeks to commit, an act of terrorism.