What makes a terrorist?

[Smiling JOe]

"I don't mind a rule or two if it was one that I'd do anyway." -- Steve Earle

 

[Miss Kitty]

What makes a terrorist? The blind belief of anthropocentric propaganda. Be it theirs or ours.

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

an?thro?po?cen?tric (

n

thr

-p

-s

n

tr

k)
adj.

1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.

The American Heritage? Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright ? 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin


Luckily, sarafunn showed me this site. bdarg...please explain your thought to me in more detail.

 

[SON]

What is a terrorist ?

In todays post 1984 world of double speak a terrorist is a person or group our Government tells us is a terrorist based on the Governments definition which is based on actual or perceived threats to their National interest and continued survival. This is the position we are in.
We either accept this definition or we become "suspect".


No doubt the participants of the "Revolutionary War" were terrorists and rebels in the eyes of the British.

In todays instant news cycle Propaganda and branding are just as essential to winning a war as are guns and electronic hacking.

 

[savvytangerine]

clarification: we are not internet people. we are mofo sowal wenches. that is all.

This is so great - it is now my signature!

Hey, what kind of cool-aide are you guys serving today?

Hey I'm ultra southern - only iced tea will do.

Maybe it should be the "offical beverage"
Is there a weekly, monthly, meeting of Sowal forum riders anywhere ?
An annual Masked ball ?

Who's in charge of the invites? Is it RSVP? Formal attaire?
......

How does the song go? Terrorism is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Oh wait - that's a hippy song. 6th won't like that. Wonder what he listens to? :scratch:

 

[Mango]

I disagree that terrorism was born of technology. According to the definition of terrorism Uncle Timmy cites, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terror. It was an act of violence designed to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coersion. More, it was an inexpensive way of garnering a disproportionate amount a attention. The Sons of Liberty were definitely a terrorist organization. Granted, I've never come across a primary source document referring to the founding fathers as 'terrorists,' but that is probably because the word didn't exist at the time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word first appeared in the late 1790's and was used to refer to government by intimidation vis a vis post-revolution, reactionary France. The meaning of the word itself changed in the late twentieth century, as the rise of terror as an act of resistance began to reemerge in the early 1970's.

When we ask what makes a terrorist, we should ask what provoked a return to terrorism over peaceful resistance given the strides made by Ghandi and King in the mid-twentieth century? Why did the Palestinians and Irish terrorists of the 1970s choose to turn to violence when resistance through non-violence was effective and philosophically avant-garde?

UT does take my thinking in a new direction, however -- maybe it's that technology enables demagoguery to reach greater numbers of people. People with small ideas and political aspirations can cast a wider net to find people swayed by there message. How much easier is it to find a few malcontents willing to blow themselves up than whole communities willing to be sprayed by fire hoses?

I agree with you Punzy regarding technology being used to possibly exact greater public emotion and appeal, but disagree with the Sons of Liberty being considered terrorists per UT's definition. The Son's of Liberty didn't inflict or threaten harm on any individuals unlike terrorists. I would consider them rebellious, but they do not seem to fit the psychological profile of a "terrorist" or terrorist group.

In most pieces that I have read seem to have a general dynamic going on which is that most terrorists are deeply traumatized individuals, as children they suffered chronic physical or mental abuse and they mistrust others.
Something triggers them that pushes them over the edge and they need to release this rage and garner attention.
Leaders of terrorist groups feed on this mental state and the cohesion of ideologies establishes a sense of belonging.

I don't profess to know enough about why the Palestinians and Irish turned to violence in the 70's, but one thing that comes to mind is that in the 70's VCR tapes came into existence. Violent acts could be taped and showed worldwide and these groups attained the notoriety and attention they were seeking through the public media?

Now I really want a cup of tea for some reason... and anisette toast.

 

[Bob]

Technology's dark side is the easy empowerment of terrorism. Bad behavior is the dark side of freedom. It's all relative to our perspective. We label our enemies terrorists. Their methods of fighting with us are labeled terrorism. It's unfortunately a very effective way to fight a stronger enemy. It's all semantics, as nothing is the same on the battlefield, but everything's the same between the ears. When war and violence are waged, man takes the route he's raised up into: anger, fear, and hate. You hit me, and I strike you back tenfold to "teach you". Look at our pop culture. To the terrorists, we're the wackjobs. We, however, view their longing for medieval theocracy with the same jaundiced eye. We're all convinced of our "superiority". We prolong the terrorists hold on the world stage, by taking the low road and destroying and killing based upon false assumptions. We have, in the last several years, put forth the notion that might makes right,and America will do what it wants, whenever it wants, even acting alone with no good reason. Our leaders continue to offer no solutions, because no one will take the first step and admit responsibility for chaos and death on a large scale. It's as if Washington hopes it will all go away by itself. Meanwhile, Bin Laden is allowed to live another day to remain our permanent boogieman, and ironically, chief benefactor for the Pentagon's bloated budget.

 

[Ocean breeze]

To me, it's more about their target. Terrorists are people who deliberately attack innocent civilians in order to terrorize an enemy society. Thus they hatefully use fear as a weapon against normal, everyday people. That's terrorism.

I agree that unstable individuals are exploited by their terrorist teachers, who warp their minds & send them as self-exploding weapons into an innocent crowd. So those walking bombs are themselves victims, of the terrorist brain-washers.

So the cause comes back to values, & so does the cure. "Winning the hearts & minds" of everyday people around the world, would dry up the support of terrorists. After 9/11, the hearts of the world were with us. We could have sought out the terrorists, with the world on our side. Now, with Bush's stirring up trouble in Iraq, we have a long way to go... to win the world's goodwill.

But it can be done. As generally good-hearted people, Americans are still well-liked in the world. When we elect new govt. leaders, the people of the world can give us a fresh chance to promote the values of freedom in the context of peace & harmony.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I agree with you Punzy regarding technology being used to possibly exact greater public emotion and appeal, but disagree with the Sons of Liberty being considered terrorists per UT's definition. The Son's of Liberty didn't inflict or threaten harm on any individuals unlike terrorists. I would consider them rebellious, but they do not seem to fit the psychological profile of a "terrorist" or terrorist group.

I believe the gov't's definition doesn't require harm to individual's. It can be to civilian population or gov't.

 

[Smiling JOe]

In most pieces that I have read seem to have a general dynamic going on which is that most terrorists are deeply traumatized individuals, as children they suffered chronic physical or mental abuse and they mistrust others.
Something triggers them that pushes them over the edge and they need to release this rage and garner attention.
Leaders of terrorist groups feed on this mental state and the cohesion of ideologies establishes a sense of belonging.

Interesting observation. I think the same could be said for many people joining the US military forces.

 

[Miss Kitty]

To me, it's more about their target. Terrorists are people who deliberately attack innocent civilians in order to terrorize an enemy society. Thus they hatefully use fear as a weapon against normal, everyday people. That's terrorism.

I agree that unstable individuals are exploited by their terrorist teachers, who warp their minds & send them as self-exploding weapons into an innocent crowd. So those walking bombs are themselves victims, of the terrorist brain-washers.

So the cause comes back to values, & so does the cure. "Winning the hearts & minds" of everyday people around the world, would dry up the support of terrorists. After 9/11, the hearts of the world were with us. We could have sought out the terrorists, with the world on our side. Now, with Bush's stirring up trouble in Iraq, we have a long way to go... to win the world's goodwill.

But it can be done. As generally good-hearted people, Americans are still well-liked in the world. When we elect new govt. leaders, the people of the world can give us a fresh chance to promote the values of freedom in the context of peace & harmony.

Ocean breeze...I like your post and your outlook. I still shudder thinking of all of the schools that have been set up to churn out more and more terrorists. My heart aches thinking of innocent children being blasted with such hate.