Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..
Originally posted by Fishy
3346 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far, that's more then 9/11 killed.
No need for a terrorist attack on US when they can kill as many of them as the US keeps sending..
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Does anyone know this? I'd look but I can't be assed...
I remember reading somthing by Noam Chomsky directly following 9-11 (yes, thats right, I was reading Chomsky). Along with all the normal rhetoric, he did get into a lot of these classifications.
Generally, you are right. There is no clear distinction between terrorist violence and state violence, or acts of war, or any of those things. I'm sure if you had enough statisticians privy to enough data they could come up with whatever they wanted.
Basically, without sounding to far on the left, American policy classifies "terrorism" as pretty much whatever is expedient to classify as terrorism.
Originally posted by inimalist
Basically, without sounding to far on the left, American policy classifies "terrorism" as pretty much whatever is expedient to classify as terrorism.
Academically, thats wrong. Most scholars I've read have drawn a line between "terrorism" and groups like Al-Queda. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, I happen to think that terrorism is almost a legitimate tactic.
Al-Queda type crap isn't actually terrorism, its something larger, I've heard the word "superterrorism" because its main goals seem to be fear, but without the nationalist agenda that defines actual terrorism.
Kidrock, maybe you can explain HOW the war in Iraq has prevented these terrorists attacks on domestic soil?
Can you do that? Can you even begin to? Or would you just like to puke up the same Bill O'Reilly school of foreign policy, one liner, sound bite crap?
You want to say that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but you can't explain why? Even Bill O'Reilly could come up with something. But, I assume you'll exercise your usual M.O. and just silently back out of the thread having stated your empty right wing propoganda, while all the time not even saying anything to back it up. Even though Jackie is wrong about everythinig, at least she tries to back up her arguments, as flawed and indefensible as they are.
Originally posted by Alliance
Academically, thats wrong. Most scholars I've read have drawn a line between "terrorism" and groups like Al-Queda. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, I happen to think that terrorism is almost a legitimate tactic.Al-Queda type crap isn't actually terrorism, its something larger, I've heard the word "superterrorism" because its main goals seem to be fear, but without the nationalist agenda that defines actual terrorism.
Thats true, there are certainly academic ways of describing it that are much better than what the government does. I guess I am assuming this 25% is a government statistic, or something being used in politics and that vein.
I'd put Al Queda under "Jihadi" group. Sure, terrorism is a tactic, but their motivations are the same as the Turks who sacked Vienna 500 years ago (and were conveniently routed on Sept 11th. Coincidence? not at all 😛)
I don't know, "terrorism" is such a bad word. Asymmetrical military campaign, 4th generation battlefield (man I love terms I hardly know the usage of), and other things are much better for academics to use to discuss the matter. The term just carries to much emotion to be all that useful
Originally posted by inimalistI don't know, "terrorism" is such a bad word. Asymmetrical military campaign, 4th generation battlefield (man I love terms I hardly know the usage of), and other things are much better for academics to use to discuss the matter. The term just carries to much emotion to be all that useful
Thought I was the only one who thought so.
Originally posted by chithappens
Thought I was the only one who thought so.
🙂
buzz words bother me.
All in all though, a word like terrorism does nothing but try to dumb down really complex situations
Why are they fighting us in Iraq, terrorism, what about in Columbia, narco-terrorism, PETA releases some monkeys, eco-terrorism.
now, if the best way of describing all of these events is by the fear created in their wake, we are screwed.
Originally posted by inimalist
🙂buzz words bother me.
All in all though, a word like terrorism does nothing but try to dumb down really complex situations
Why are they fighting us in Iraq, terrorism, what about in Columbia, narco-terrorism, PETA releases some monkeys, eco-terrorism.
now, if the best way of describing all of these events is by the fear created in their wake, we are screwed.
Funny enough that is exactly how I see it. It is all about getting people to feel they need to be protected which is working thus far. Scary that people trust the government before their own common sense (although that assumes that have a certain amount of knowledge and yeah so I either recant that last sentence or just please take it with a grain of salt).
Originally posted by chithappens
Funny enough that is exactly how I see it. It is all about getting people to feel they need to be protected which is working thus far. Scary that people trust the government before their own common sense (although that assumes that have a certain amount of knowledge and yeah so I either recant that last sentence or just please take it with a grain of salt).
absolutely. I will never understand why people put so much faith in the government. They want it to be this overbearing father figure that just makes all the tough decisions for them. Which is terrible. I forget who said it, but "people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people". Not entirely applicable, but it does speak toward the loss of personal accountability at the expense of an overarching state.
My biggest problem with the term "terrorism" (Not being American I haven't had to personally deal with the politicizing of terrorism into a campaign issue) is that it is the catch-all label for people that are ideologically opposed to the government. Thus, any subversive action by an extremist group is just blanket labeled as "terrorism".
My biggest fear is that this will grow into domestic accusations, where members of communist or anarchist groups who demonstrate against capitalist organizations like the WTO or whatever will get this label. That, to me, would spark another McCarthy era in the states. I guess I also feel obligated to say that I am a firm supporter of the WTO and the people who try to firebomb their buildings. The former for simple pragmatic reasons, the latter for overwhelming emotional justification.
Originally posted by Devil King
Kidrock, maybe you can explain [b]HOW the war in Iraq has prevented these terrorists attacks on domestic soil?Can you do that? Can you even begin to?[/B]
Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.
The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.
Next.
Originally posted by KidRock
Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.
Next.
And they can't camp elsewhere in other parts of the world or pull a "24" on us why?
Originally posted by KidRock
Terrorists that plan against America arent arrested or deported or sent to trial when they are in Iraq..they are free to do as they choose.The US invades Iraq, the terrorists now cannot just stay there, they must be on the run or they are getting killed..which stops terrorism.
Next.
Really 😱
There are no terrorist in Iraq? (btw the terrorists seem to be staying)
Also, what about terrorists elsewhere...Saddam executed terrorists, there likely weren't that many there. Most terrorists wer enot in Iraq, certainly not the super-terrorists that attacked the US.
Originally posted by inimalist
absolutely. I will never understand why people put so much faith in the government. They want it to be this overbearing father figure that just makes all the tough decisions for them. Which is terrible. I forget who said it, but "people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people". Not entirely applicable, but it does speak toward the loss of personal accountability at the expense of an overarching state.
Originally posted by inimalist
My biggest problem with the term "terrorism" (Not being American I haven't had to personally deal with the politicizing of terrorism into a campaign issue) is that it is the catch-all label for people that are ideologically opposed to the government. Thus, any subversive action by an extremist group is just blanket labeled as "terrorism".
The "subversive" word you're looking for in the US is not terrorism, its "un-American." Even that one is still getting tossed around.
Originally posted by Alliance
Its sad that you can so effectively analyze terrorism, but can't apply the same interest in government. Government is very useful and doesn't act at all like the overbearing father figure. Government is the manifistation of communal responsibility. If people actually understood government and participated in it, people would feel a greater element of personal accountability. I'd say that people with your opinon is the reason why government can cause lapses in personal responsibility.
haha, I'm really not as much of an extremist as I like to pretend I am 🙂
I'd vote if there was a party in Canada that wasn't just a form of soft socialism
Originally posted by Alliance
Honestly, in the US, terrorism has dropped off the map. in '01 and '02 even into '04 it was everywhere, but since Bush got re-elected, all of our focus has been on Iraq. Terrorism barely even exists outside of Iraq anymore.The "subversive" word you're looking for in the US is not terrorism, its "un-American." Even that one is still getting tossed around.
you don't say 🙂
thats good news to say the least