Is the word "terrorist" being over used?

Its seem nowadays you only have to call someone a terrorist to justify attacking them. Why not just say the whole world is full of terrorists except the US, Isreal, Uk and whoever else wants a piece of the cake and go for it.

Glad this wasn´t the case 20 odd years ago otherwise England could have wiped the Republic of Ireland out and moved in, after all like in Lebanon Ireland was a terrorist state, the IRA fighting for thier cause. This puts the rediculous Isreali actions into perspective

Who are the real terrorist here:-
those who use unconventional weapons (suicide bomb packs, car bombs and now even conventional katuscha rockets etc) to kill civillians, those who use conventional more powerfull weapons (f16, warships, tanks) to kill civilians.

surely those who use conventional more powerfull weapons are more terrorising than those who use little (in comparison) car bombs. Having your nieghbourhood suddenly wiped out by a cruise missile is just as annoying as having your local café blown up by a car bomb.

I am sick of this bloody word

😬 terrorist..

terrorists...

😬

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
😬 terrorist..

terrorists...

😬

the word terrorist is being abused alot and it is getting to the point where little kids are being claimed as terrorists themselves. 🙁

Most are.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
😬 terrorist..

terrorists...

😬

Do you mean yes?

its "terr'st", they spread "terra" through acts of "terr'sm"
get it right

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Who are the real terrorist here:-
those who use unconventional weapons (suicide bomb packs, car bombs and now even conventional katuscha rockets etc) to kill civillians, those who use conventional more powerfull weapons (f16, warships, tanks) to kill civilians.

surely those who use conventional more powerfull weapons are more terrorising than those who use little (in comparison) car bombs. Having your nieghbourhood suddenly wiped out by a cruise missile is just as annoying as having your local café blown up by a car bomb.

Wow. This is moral relativism in the extreme. You seem to be arguing that because conventional armies have superior weaponry, it's unfair for them to use it against people who blow up civilians with home-made bombs. Plus, you assume that the Israelis, U.S., and Brits use things like cruise missiles to primarily hit civilian targets. This flies in complete contravention of the facts.

Just to help you figure it out, terrorists are the guys not wearing uniforms, car-bombing civilians, and delivering chicken-s..t tape-recorded ultimatums as they behead terrorized captives.

The good guys are the one's targeting these guys. Since the terrorists are not wearing uniforms and hide in and behind civilian areas, any retaliation against them will unfortunately result in collateral damage of some sort. Would it be best if retaliation didn't involve collateral damage? Yes. Does the fact that it does justify not responding to people destroying innocent lives for the sake of their political cause (whatever the hell it is)? Think about how you would answer if some lunatic made a dynamite-strapped suicide run into your dad's favorite pub.

so the enemy of our enemy is "the good guys". see how hollywood has corrupted our sense of reality?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Wow. This is moral relativism in the extreme. You seem to be arguing that because conventional armies have superior weaponry, it's unfair for them to use it against people who blow up civilians with home-made bombs. Plus, you assume that the Israelis, U.S., and Brits use things like cruise missiles to primarily hit civilian targets. This flies in complete contravention of the facts.

You misunderstood, I was refering to the latest Isreali activity when commenting on the conventional arms V terrorists tactics.

You can´t compare countries like the US and Uk to Isreal.
The US and Uk arn´t sitting on occupied land (apart from iraq if you see it that way), holding thousands of people prisoner, and persecute a whole population. Isreal are becomming what nearly destroyed them, war criminals.

If Isreal wouldn´t be doing this shit there wouldn´t be any Muslim fanatical terrorists.

The US and Israel have trademarked the term "Terrorists."

If you hate Israel so bad, why don't you just make up your own word and call them that? Call them something like "Erokaphibs." That sounds good. That's your new word for them.

Originally posted by Bicnarok

If Isreal wouldn´t be doing this shit there wouldn´t be any Muslim fanatical terrorists.

Um. No. The Palestinians would continue to bomb them regardless. They truely believe that Israelis are a bane to Allah. They want to kill them all...

Originally posted by Draco69
Um. No. The Palestinians would continue to bomb them regardless. They truely believe that Israelis are a bane to Allah. They want to kill them all...

That is true. The fascist leadership in Syria and Iran wants to see Israel destroyed and the Jews wiped off the face of the earth. How do you reach cease-fire terms with people that think like that?

"Terrorist" is just the new American buzz word that other conservative wester countrys are bought into, its to "Communisim" what New Coke is to Classic Coke.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
That is true. The fascist leadership in Syria and Iran wants to see Israel destroyed and the Jews wiped off the face of the earth. How do you reach cease-fire terms with people that think like that?

Pretty much.

Shits going to hit the fan either way.... sympathizing with religious zealots who would kill innocent women and children with bombs (thinking that they will get 47 virgins or whatever) is fine if you want to play the "It may really be our fault... for being so rich and powerfull" game.... but won't you just feel stupid when the war to end all wars comes anyway, despite your best efforts to reason against it?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Wow. This is moral relativism in the extreme. You seem to be arguing that because conventional armies have superior weaponry, it's unfair for them to use it against people who blow up civilians with home-made bombs. Plus, you assume that the Israelis, U.S., and Brits use things like cruise missiles to primarily hit civilian targets. This flies in complete contravention of the facts.

Just to help you figure it out, terrorists are the guys not wearing uniforms, car-bombing civilians, and delivering chicken-s..t tape-recorded ultimatums as they behead terrorized captives.

The good guys are the one's targeting these guys. Since the terrorists are not wearing uniforms and hide in and behind civilian areas, any retaliation against them will unfortunately result in collateral damage of some sort. Would it be best if retaliation didn't involve collateral damage? Yes. Does the fact that it does justify not responding to people destroying innocent lives for the sake of their political cause (whatever the hell it is)? Think about how you would answer if some lunatic made a dynamite-strapped suicide run into your dad's favorite pub.

So the one who wears uniform and fights for his country is terrorist but the one who doesn't wear uniform and bombs hundreds civilians is a "good guy"? Man, you are so naive, they bomb civilians not because someone is hiding nearby but because they just don't care about civilians and they want to kill a lot of people to make other be affraid of them.
What would you do if you was just staying in your house and it suddenly gets destroyed and your son killed for no reason, and there is no force in the country to fight back? You would put on the same uniform and do the fight yourself.
You have some serious problems with seeing who the "bad guys" really are and this is not about stupid uniforms.

Originally posted by Sam Z
So the one who wears uniform and fights for his country is terrorist but the one who doesn't wear uniform and bombs hundreds civilians is a "good guy"? Man, you are so naive,

I think he said the opposite. You guys actually might be on the same page here.

Originally posted by smoker4
Do you mean yes?

✅

Sorry... when was the Republic of Ireland ever in a position to be called a 'terrorist state'?

This comparison is ludicrous. A lot of shit seems to get talked about Ireland around here.