The term, Terrorist.

[GiaOmerta]

Most of my ideas are on the right side of the fence, but I like to think of the bigger picture too.

Today, we see the label terrorist, which is widely projected by the media and by the word of mouth

We currently associate terrorists with members of organizations like Al Qaeda, and various other Jihadist groups.

We've got some large monetary rewards for some of these guys.
$25,000,000 USD to Osama, and various amounts for others.

The ironic thing is, at one point in time, these people were our puppets. We armed many of these groups and sent them against our enemies during the Cold War. Twenty-thirty years later these groups turn against us. What the hell?

Kind of reminds me of 1984. Goldstein is the center of Oceania's two minute hates.

If your not familiar with the book 1984. Read it, it's a good book.

But, yes, reminds me the two minute hate. Oceania focuses it's hate on Goldstein. We're doing the same with terrorists. Focusing our hate and condemning them.

NOT to say terrorist deserve any moral mercy, but I do believe the term Terrorist can be easily labeled on those who oppose those who are in power.

An easy way to destroy one's enemies. A Salem Witch Tale if you will. It happened with the Red Scare, just replace Terrorist with Communist. It could happen again.

Comments.

 

[bliink]

Terrorist is todays equivalent of "communist", before that, "nazi", before that, it depends on where you're from.. its just something for people to be scared of, to be united against.. it is alot like 1984

 

[seinfeldrules]

You're right, we really should be more accepting of people who try to accomplish their goal by singling out civilians and slaughtering them.

 

[Neutrino]

I agree. I made a similar point in a thread the other day:

Another thing is that the label "terrorist" is becoming one of the worst stereotypes of our time. All that is needed anymore is to label a group as being terrorists and that automatically makes them evil, regardless of the actual situation or circumstances. It's a dangerous way of thinking in my opinion that lends way to much power to governments who are able to manipulate and sway public opinion in their favor with a name, a mere label. Not only does it lead to a governmental power in the form of a political tool, but it creates a severe "us or them" mentality that distorts reality into a deceptively simple idea of good and evil, which leaves no room for compromise or consideration of the real complexities involved between opposing cultures. And where does all this leave "us"?

...to mindlessly celebrate "their" deaths at the hands of one of our own. Just don't be surprised when "they" celebrates "our" deaths just as enthusiastically. But that's ok isn't it? Because after all, we have the comfort of knowing that we cleanse them from atop our white pillar of moral righteousness, while they murder us from the black depths of their evil ways....

...right?

I think it's a dangerous stereotype that is giving too much power to our government. Granted, there are many times when the term terrorist is quite accurate, but I think it's being used too often. Also, as you point out it's a way those in power are able to give themselves instant moral superiority in the public eye, often without the normal skepticism and questioning by the populace that is normally present.

You're right, we really should be more accepting of people who try to accomplish their goal by singling out civilians and slaughtering them.

That has nothing to do with what he was saying at all.

Edit: Bliink makes an excellent point as well. It's like so many buzz words from the past used to condemn our enemies. It simplifies things into good and evil, us and them, fueling our natural tendency toward national tribalism. That way people don't have to think, they don't have to worry about all the complexities and moral implication involved. It's far easier to just label a group as evil and be done with it.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Kind of scary if you think about it.

The Crucible + 1984 + Present = A possible future

 

[seinfeldrules]

That has nothing to do with what he was saying at all.

Why? Should we reach out to these people? Are you suggesting that the term not be synonymous with enemy? Maybe it should be with friend, that would make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Neutrino]

Why? Should we reach out to these people? Are you suggesting that the term not be synonymous with enemy? Maybe it should be with friend, that would make a whole lot of sense.

You are completely missing the point. He is not defending people who are true terrorists. He's merely saying that it's becoming a convenient label that is possibly being applied to more people than it should be, and is making it easier for governments to condemn entire groups as evil, regardless of the actual situation.

GiaOmerta, feel free to correct me if I'm wrongly interpreting what you meant.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Who said anything about reaching out to these people?
People, I'm referring to are the known groups which inflict terror such as Al Qaeda.

 

[seinfeldrules]

He's merely saying that it's becoming a convenient label that is possibly being applied to more people than it should be.

And that is the government's fault? I guess it all has to reach back to Bush in some way...

He is saying that it is just another thing to unite against. Well, yes it is. What is the alternative? Ununiting against them? Shrugging them off?

 

[Neutrino]

And that is the government's fault? I guess it all has to reach back to Bush in some way...

Sigh, you're impossible.

Just forget it. Think whatever you wish.

 

[GiaOmerta]

You are completely missing the point. He is not defending people who are true terrorists. He's merely saying that it's becoming a convenient label that is possibly being applied to more people than it should be.

Bingo.
I believe this could lead to a 'Salem Witch Trial'. When the truth is, some jeolous slut is out to ruin a few good people's lives.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Not only does it lead to a governmental power in the form of a political tool, but it creates a severe "us or them" mentality that distorts reality into a deceptively simple idea of good and evil, which leaves no room for compromise or consideration of the real complexities involved between opposing cultures. And where does all this leave "us"?

Am I dreaming? You were clearly attempting to blame Bush for any discrepancies people have while using the word.

 

[Neutrino]

Am I dreaming? You were clearly attempting to blame Bush for any discrepancies people have while using the word.

Oh get off it already. You're the one bringing up Bush here, not me.

 

[GiaOmerta]

This goes way above Bush seinfeld.
I happen to like Bush and agree with most of he's policies by the way.
But this goes above Bush.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh get off it already. You're the one bringing up Bush here, not me

Government is clearly mentioned in your tirade. Which one were you referring to? Swedens?

 

[seinfeldrules]

But this goes above Bush.

I disagree. I think this is just another attempt for people to justify comparing his administration to that found in 1984. It is foolish. Take Iraq, the media clearly distinguishes insurgents and terrorists when it is necessary. You hear mention of both words.

 

[Neutrino]

Government is clearly mentioned in your tirade. Which one were you referring to? Swedens?

You think the word government is synonomous with Bush now?

I was talking about our government and other governments in general, the relationship between them and public opinion, and how that affects the current "war on terrorism." It's pretty funny how you accuse me of making everything about Bush when I never even mentioned him and you were the one to bring him up. Get it through your head, I was not discussing Bush here. If I were I would have said "Bush" instead of "governments." Sheesh.

I disagree. I think this is just another attempt for people to justify comparing his administration to that found in 1984. It is foolish. Take Iraq, the media clearly distinguishes insurgents and terrorists when it is necessary. You hear mention of both words.

Oh that's rich. You're the only one here comparing the current administration to 1984. Nobody else did. You did.

Can we drop it now?

 

[GiaOmerta]

This has nothing to do with Bush though. I'm actually speaking in future terms. None of this will happen til Bush is out of office Not to United States citizens or citizens of Western Civ. at least.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I was talking about our government and other governments in general, the relationship between them and public opinion, and how that affects the current "war on terrorism."

Exactly. I merely meant Bush was receiving the blame for this when it really shouldnt be placed in his court. By other gov'ts I take it you were referring to GB and a few more of our allies...

It's pretty funny how you accuse me of making everything about Bush

Mostly stern. But I was correct in that you were referring in part to our gov't aka Bush.

its just something for people to be scared of, to be united against.. it is alot like 1984

Who is he referring to uniting these people? It must be Jacque Chirac.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Taken from FoxNews.com, front page story. This should be the media outlet that is heading to create this 1984 type atmosphere, correct?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143585,00.html

No other details were immediately available about the latest attack. But Iraq's insurgents have frequently targeted American troops with crude explosives planted in roads and detonated remotely as patrols pass.

...

The bodies were discovered Wednesday, the day an attacker blew up an explosives-laden car outside a police academy south of Baghdad, killing 20 people. A second car bomber killed five Iraqi policemen in Baqouba. Both attacks were claimed by Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

[Tr0n]

We americans were once terrorist...Hint: Revolutionary war.

 

[seinfeldrules]

We americans were once terrorist...Hint: Revolutionary war.

I'd call it insurgents, its not like we were singling out British citizens 1000 miles away...

 

[Neutrino]

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Just drop it will you?

Exactly. I merely meant Bush was receiving the blame for this when it really shouldnt be placed in his court. By other gov'ts I take it you were referring to GB and a few more of our allies...

For the last time, I was not discussing Bush. If you wish to discuss him that's fine. We can go make another thread to discuss Bush and terrorism. I mean what, I'm not allowed to use the word government now without being accused of attacking Bush? Come on, there is more to world politics than one administration or as you seem to believe, one president.

Mostly stern. But I was correct in that you were referring in part to our gov't aka Bush.

Is Stern in this thread? Nope.

No you were not correct. "Our government, also known as Bush"? I know you would dearly like to make me out to be some kind of scorned liberal, irrationally attacking Bush at any oppurtunity, but you're really stretching it here.

Who is he referring to uniting these people? It must be Jacque Chirac.

You've lost me here. He said terrorism is something for people to be united against.

Can we be done with your little Bush "tirade" now?

 

[Tr0n]

I'd call it insurgents, its not like we were singling out British citizens 1000 miles away...

What about British citizens 20/30/40 miles away?

 

[seinfeldrules]

We can go make another thread to discuss Bush and terrorism. I mean what, I'm not allowed to use the word government now without being accused of attacking Bush?

Which other gov'ts were you referring to?

I'm not allowed to use the word government now without being accused of attacking Bush?

I was talking about our government and other governments in general, the relationship between them and public opinion, and how that affects the current "war on terrorism."

"Our government, also known as Bush"?

Were you referring to Sen. Pelosi? Bush is the headstone of the gov't and as a whole I dont feel that it should be accused of manipulating people.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Seinfeldrules.
The point was we have to do what we have to do.
Jackasses similar Senator McCarthy will mostly like appear in the future excusing people of being terrorists, blacklisting, ect.

New policy is proposed. Joe-smo does'nt like it, and voices he's opinion. Jimmy Two Times wants the new policy to go through and accuses Joe-smo of being a terrorist. Joe-smo loses creditablity. Joe-smo is apprended. Joe-smo is eveuntally secretly executed and left to rot in New Mexico.

See what I mean.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What about British citizens 20/30/40 miles away?

Yes, but that doesnt mean all the Americans back in the day were terrorists. Just as nobody calls all Iranians terrorists.

 

[seinfeldrules]

New policy is proposed. Joe-smo does'nt like it, and voices he's opinion. Jimmy Two Times wants the new policy to go through and accuses Joe-smo of being a terrorist. Joe-smo loses creditablity. Joe-smo is apprended. Joe-smo is eveuntally secretly executed and left to rot in New Mexico.

Show me an example of this though. I have never heard of one, nor witnessed one. I dont feel our country is heading down that road at all. I act no differently towards Muslim's in my community than I did 5 years ago. Nor do I notice anybody acting in such a manner.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Exactly.
We're making reference to the future.

I'll show you an example.
Replace Terrorist with Communist and Jimmy Two Times with Senator McCarthy.
Maybe people werent apprended and murdered but their creditablity was tainted forever.

McCarthy wasnt the only one either accusing

 

[seinfeldrules]

Exactly.
We're making reference to the future.

Yes, but I think that steps are being taken to avoid such events. Muslim leaders, as well as political leaders, give more than enough air time to voicing their call not to discriminate because of 9/11.

 

[GiaOmerta]

President Hillary Clinton.
Secretary General Bill Clinton.

The big '08

lol

When you say boo... they say terrorist.
When they say terrorist. You go to jail.

 

[seinfeldrules]

When you say boo... they say terrorist.
When they say terrorist. You go to jail.

hahaha

Go arrest that damn Conserva... I mean terrorist.

 

[qckbeam]

The term does seem to encompass a much broader range of people now as compared to a few years back. Not too long ago it was an uncommon word to use; When it was it was only in reference to a member of a group that had used violence to obtain some political objective. Today I notice it being tossed around left and right by average, everyday people in place of something like "un-American" or "unpatriotic". I've been told that I think "Like one a them terrorists" myself, so yes, I certainly do see the term taking on a brand new meaning (I was called that for opposing the war).

Some of the more conservative members of my family have taken to calling anyone of Middle Eastern descent "ragheads" or "terrorists". The scary thing is, part of the group I'm talking about are NYS Troopers. I've heard them telling stories about the things they've done while on patrol. Things like "Oh we let the normal looking ones through, but any of them ragheads come to the checkpoint and we pull 'em over real quick. Give 'em a good search, dogs, the whole nine yards." Say what you will about things like that, but I've known these particular people for some time now, and they never spoke of “ragheads” previous to Sept. 11th. Whether or not people like to admit it, society is starting to polarize. The word "terrorist" went from it’s true definition to meaning anyone of Arabic descent quickly enough, and has already begun expanding to include the supposedly “un-American” or “unpatriotic” (as many anti-war people have been labeled in the past) regardless of background. All it'll take is a bit more fear, and a bit more time before we have ourselves a full-blown witch-hunt.

 

[bliink]

Some of the more conservative members of my family have taken to calling anyone of Middle Eastern descent "ragheads" or "terrorists". The scary thing is, part of the group I'm talking about are NYS Troopers. I've heard them telling stories about the things they've done while on patrol. Things like "Oh we let the normal looking ones through, but any of them ragheads come to the checkpoint and we pull 'em over real quick. Give 'em a good search, dogs, the whole nine yards." Say what you will about things like that, but I've known these particular people for some time now, and they never spoke of “ragheads” previous to Sept. 11th. Whether or not people like to admit it, society is starting to polarize. The word "terrorist" went from it’s true definition to meaning anyone of Arabic descent quickly enough, and has already begun expanding to include the supposedly “un-American” or “unpatriotic” (as many anti-war people have been labeled in the past) regardless of background. All it'll take is a bit more fear, and a bit more time before we have ourselves a full-blown witch-hunt.

Thats exactly right, its just another step towards the Mcarthyism of the Cold War, where you're "either with us, or against us"- effectively turning everyone into an easily manipulated drone.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I agree completely. It's turning into McCarthyism all over again.
All you need to do nowadays is say you're fighting terrorists, and you'll gain instant support from a significant percentage of society.
You don't need to say who the terrorists are, or what their motivations are. All you need to do is point your finger and yell 'terrorist' like one of those pod people.

I'm pretty sure even I have been called a terrorist sympathiser a few times on these forums, just because I'm opposed to the War in Iraq. I've been called anti-american because I don't like George Bush* and I'd probably be called unpatriotic too, if I weren't a foreigner.

It's just providing buzzwords so that people don't need to think. A complex and vastly important issue has been reduced to: 'you terrorist, you bad' and ll too often: 'you different, you terrorist.'

Criticise anything about america, and you're anti-american.
-I think the war in Iraq was a needless distraction from hunting Al-Queda?
Anti-american.
-Saying George Bush's policy of merging church and state sets a dangerous precedent?
Anti-american (and some anti-christian thrown in for good measure).
-Complaining about the overuse of the term 'anti-american'?
You better believe that's anti-american.

They've become swear words, so frivolously applied to anything even mildly out of the ordinary that they've already begun to lose their meaning.
If I can be a terrorist, then anyone can be.
The issue is so diluted that you don't know where to look.
So McCarthy hunts for communists in America, and people try to find terrorists on HL2.net. It's crazy.


*Although I have mentioned George Bush and several of his policies in my post, please note that they are only in brief summaries of other posts currently found in the forum archives, and not a part of the topic at hand. Sorry seinfeldrules.

 

[el Chi]

Terrorist is todays equivalent of "communist"

I was just about to say the exact same thing. "Un-American" also works as the new "Communist".
At the moment, "terrorist" means whatever the hell we want it to mean. However it suits us, there shall it be used.

 

[Maxi]

Actually, there are people who belive that osama didn't mastermind the attacks, he only funded them. The US labels people terrorists that they don't like, or that they want to use as scapegoats, so that they won't have to deal with the real terrorists so that their relationship with other arab countries can stay the same, and so that american corporations who funded the presidents campain will either still be able to pump oil, will get more oil, or defense companies will get new orders for thousands more cruise missiles.

THE biggest problem with the us presidential system is the fact that companies fund the candidates campaigns. It should be as it is in Finland, the government gives each candidate the same amount of money to spend, if he spends more than the alloted sum, he/she will get punished. This is to avoid the problem of the candidate once becoming president will "owe one" to the company(ies) from whom he/she got the cash.

 

[el Chi]

I'd call it insurgents, its not like we were singling out British citizens 1000 miles away...

Exactly how does it matter where you are? The Oklahoma bomber was local, not from 1000 miles away. The IRA, whilst bombing us for at least 30 years, were technically part of the UK.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Exactly how does it matter where you are? The Oklahoma bomber was local, not from 1000 miles away. The IRA, whilst bombing us for at least 30 years, were technically part of the UK.

Huh?..

 

[seinfeldrules]

Again, nobody has posted anything even relating to evidence other than me. Taken from the headlines of FOXNEWS.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143585,00.html

No other details were immediately available about the latest attack. But Iraq's insurgents have frequently targeted American troops with crude explosives planted in roads and detonated remotely as patrols pass.

...

The bodies were discovered Wednesday, the day an attacker blew up an explosives-laden car outside a police academy south of Baghdad, killing 20 people. A second car bomber killed five Iraqi policemen in Baqouba. Both attacks were claimed by Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

And mech your argument works both ways.

I support the war in Iraq.
I am a patriotic zealot who blindly follows Bush

I oppose gay marriage.
I am a religious zealot who blindly follows Bush (also a bigot)

I dispute parts of F9/11.
I am a neo-con oppressing free speech while blindly following Bush.