Is it just me or do some of you guys cringe when you hear the word "terrorism" on TV? Its so over used I am wondering if it has any meaning anymore. When every countrys leader can call any insurgency, rebellion, or whatever "terrorists," I feel it detracts from the word. Its like crying wolf isnt it? Same problem with 9-11 right? Im just wondering if any of you know what I'm talking about, and if you feel the same disparagement I do when i hear the same things repeated. I need to vent at Bill O'Reilly I guess :)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

its not that its used too often, its just that it should be used every time you are talking about people from one country attacking another, therefore its a useless word

you reckon the iraqis werent terrified with the American army rolling towards them?
anyone with a gun causes terror and therefore is a terrorist

Well geee...The world has more terrorists and terrorist acts in it than ever, hence the frequent usage of this particular word. Did you see the young retarded boy that Santa sent in they caught at an Israeli checkpoint yesterday? The work of Santa? No, I believe terrorists might be to blame.

Hey Proud,
I find it humorous that you posted first in this thread, considering the title. Almost as humorous as your post.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I wouldn't consider a freedom fighter somebody who uses kids in war, or kills innocent civvys.

the term has been misused, overused, and abused by the media that it lost its meaning

people are jaded about it and make fun of it... while people keep dying

The word "terrorist" has lost some of its punch for me. I think the parts of the War on Terror that make a teachers' union striking for better benefits a terrorist organization really sucked the life out of it.

A revolution targets the government. Terrorists target civilians. Big difference.
I find it kind of strange that while there has been numerous successful coups and revolutions throught the centuries- non of them attacked civilians. Yet the Islamic movement sure seems to think thats the way to go. But then again they are terrorists, not freedom fighters.

I've yet to hear a definition of terrorism that won't upset those giving it when applied consistently. One of the best I've heard is: "Organized violence by non-state actors against civilians to effect change."
However, this would mean that, while the 9/11 attack on the WTC was terrorism, the attack on the pentagon was not.

interesting ... but
1) there were civilians on the plane.. whose throats were slashed before the plane dropped
2) some civilians were working in the pentagon

interesting ... but
1) there were civilians on the plane.. whose throats were slashed before the plane dropped
2) some civilians were working in the pentagon
Its pretty clear though, that the main target was the pentagon, so they were all just collateral damage.
Or to make things more complicated, one could say that the hijacking of the plane was terrorism, but crashing it into the pentagon was not. Taking it a step further you could look at each individual murder and say for the civilians that they were killed by terrorism and the military were not.

I'm not trying to say any part of these attacks were in any way justified or acceptable, just pointing out that, even with the best definition of terrorism that I've come across, certain activites that seem pretty clearly to be terrorism don't meet the criteria.

if it's not justified and not acceptible, it's terrorism.

the people in the pentagon who died were not combatants, were not armed, were not aggressive, they were secretaries and office workers

if it's not justified and not acceptible, it's terrorism.
Killing someone in a bar fight is not justified and not acceptable, but its not terrorism.

the people in the pentagon who died were not combatants, were not armed, were not aggressive, they were secretaries and office workers
The pentagon is clearly part of the US military infrastructure, and the target was clearly the US military, even if they failed to actually kill anyone in the military. The US has on occasion launced guided missiles at convoys suspected of containing al-qaeda leaders only to discover when sorting throuh the remains that they were innocent people.
Yassin wasn't a combatant either.

slight difference:

us, humans, when conducting military operations, try to minimize loss of civilian life, and life in general

but these animals don't. it's not like they were "well, unfortunately civilians will be killed too.. but"
for them it was the more the better

JPS,

I will agree with you on the Pentagon. While the civilians were not part of the Military, they did work for the Govt at the Pentagon.

The Palestinians are powerless, they don't have an army or any heavy weapons and so they resort to desperate measures. Yes, they are terrorists and yes, they do attack civilians indiscriminately, but that is exactly what the Israeli army is doing to Palestinian civilians; how are they supposed to fight genocide?

Other terrorist acts in other countries, unless claimed to be caused by recognised terror organisations, are, I believe, artificially created by their own governments or their affiliates secret services, in order to fulfil their hidden agendas and then blamed on Islamist militants.

Bin Laden said he had nothing to do with 9/11; why was he targeted? Neither the Basques nor any credible recognised Islamist organisation claimed responsibility for the Spain train bomb, yet both were blamed by the powers that be. If you're going to cause an outrage in order to be heard, isn't it sensible to actually admit to it, otherwise what's the point?

This modern concept of Terrorism, is modern man's artificially created Bogeyman. It is designed to make people frightened, paranoid and submissive to government power and whatever they've got in mind for us and future generations.

slight difference:

us, humans, when conducting military operations, try to minimize loss of civilian life, and life in general

but these animals don't. it's not like they were "well, unfortunately civilians will be killed too.. but"
for them it was the more the better
then you'd have to add to the definition whether they felt good or bad about the collateral damage the attack caused, which can't really be proven.

The Palestinians are powerless, they don't have an army or any heavy weapons and so they resort to desperate measures.

they had their chances and attempts of destroying a [far weaker than now] Israel, when the arab bloc was being armed, for free, by the Soviets

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

meaning what?

quote:
they had their chances and attempts of destroying a [far weaker than now] Israel, when the arab bloc was being armed, for free, by the Soviets

A few soundbytes come to mind, Soviets... cold war... destroy Israel (US and Gt Britain's baby)... third world war... expensive lunch!

USSR was very instrumental in creating Israel
USA actually wasn't too enthusiastic about it

i'll provide a link later

you know, the US did not help Israel at all in the first 2 decades of its existence...