sick of people calling Bush/Blair Terrorists

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

you hear it at every march, 'Bush and Blair are the real terrorists!' no they are not, they are imperialists. terrorism is an act perpetrated by groups or individuals against the state, imperialism is the act of one state forcing its will on another state and its people. Am I wrong?

― lukey (Lukey G), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought terrorism was about trying to achieve one's aims by inflicting and continuing to threaten terror until ones aims are achieved. I don't really see why that can't apply to governments,, though I guess they're usually happy with the status quo, or have other ways of achieving goals.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:37 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought the definition of terrorism was that it was war carried out indepent of the state?

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Sort of, but the whole thing about the WOT isn that obviously tearists don't really operate independently: they are funded and protected by the Saudis or whoever.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So it all depends on how your opinion on the "unlawful" bit - as the rest of it seems to fit.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm sure that read ok when I typed it :-/

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:44 (twenty-two years ago)

but enrq, isnt that what the phrase "state sponsored terrorism" was invented for?

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:47 (twenty-two years ago)

What about the Israelis? Are they terrorists?

― MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm pretty sick of Bush calling anybody who's an enemy of the U.S. a 'terrorist.'

― Debito (Debito), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:50 (twenty-two years ago)

personally i think 'terrorism'=making civilians explicit targets, hence ww2 'terror bombing'. so bush/blair aren't really terrorists -- not in the same way al-queda is.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont think isreal are terrorists, because they are using the state machinery, an army. i think, by definition this means it is not terror. ie, the nazis, they were not terrorists either.

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:52 (twenty-two years ago)

'terrorism'=making civilians explicit targets

exactly. you can add "in order to shock and awe, demoralize the enemy".
It can made by the army charlton. For instance Hiroshima was terrorism. As is Sharon's strategy in the west bank.

― -Bruno, Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The phrase you are looking for there is 'total war'.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:31 (twenty-two years ago)

It all brings home the odd way in which many of us rank our moral opprobrium. People being killed by the national army of a country with a democratically elected government is *not as bad as* people being killed by the national army of a country with an undemocratic government which in turn is *not as bad as* people being killed by terrorists (using the narrow defintion of the term). There is a tendency for some ppl - MANY ppl - to think in this way, even tho the hellish suffering of the targets of the military activity is the same. Hence I think the tendency of ppl to broaden the use of the term terrorist by ppl who recognise this fact.

― MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)

i wasnt ranking state sponsered actions above or below non-state sponsored actions

if a town is blown up, it is of no consequence to the dead, whether the bombers were state (and, hence 'legitimate') or non-state (hence, 'terrorist'), they are still dead.

i dont think we need to widen the term terrorism. i think the non-governmental definition is fine. we might want to de-emote the word though, because its current usage implies it is worse than the actions of a nation. perhaps, im most cases it is, that is a subjective and personal question, but in many cases, it is no worse than a despotic regime that apply similar methods to the populace

it is merely that, in international relations, the actions of a state, are viewed as legimitized (for the most part)

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I wasn't saying you did, Charltonlido. In fact I'd be very surprised if many ilxors thought in the way i described but it is very common. I suspect it's getting less common amongst ordinary members of the public.

― MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I would consider it (terrorism) better than life under despotism, as it's a probabilistic rather than deterministic danger: you know that if you go to certain places (even if certain places = 'out') you might get hurt, as opposed to knowing that if you do or say certain things, your days are numbered.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:50 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't think the "non-governmental definition" actually exists. Where does it come from ?

― -Bruno, Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Al-Qaeda is really a stateless nation, isn't it? So it feels more like guerilla war than terrorism to me.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 10:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush's (and his cronies') frequent news conferences warning vaguely of Al Qaeda attacks-- while Al Qaeda-related souces evidently keep shtum-- is a second-order kind of terrorism.

― Dickerson Pike (Dickerson Pike), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 11:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Dickerson OTM.

Al-Qaeda is really a stateless nation, isn't it?

No.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Al-Qaeda is really a stateless nation, isn't it?

yeah I was gonna say, al Qaeda ain't even really an "organization" in any real sense of the word, either.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 12:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I had something to say but I've forgotten it due to the fact that "State Of The Nation" is now echoing through my brain.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

hahahahah I was thinking more "Shellshock," Dan.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Love Vigilantes?

― MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Everything's Gone Green

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

The phrase you are looking for there is 'total war'.

i thought that's when the soldiers fill in for positions of other soldiers in defence as they charge forward for attacks. something the dutch soldiers of the 70s did so well at.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

'Power, Corruption, and Lies'

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.