Terrorist, I think we can agree, is a bloated term almost devoid of any definitive meaning. Like, for example, “art” or “love”, or perhaps “truth”.

There are many kinds of terror and indeed they are all, from the point of view of those suffering them, bad.

The government has learned not to call the middle eastern fighters “terrorists” unless they are in our country. When in Iraq they are now called “insurgents”. Quite how you can “‘inserge” in your own country is beyond me, but that is the new “label of evil”.

Things have always been this way and governments, kings, those in power, have always liked to give a name to a fear, a label, with which they can directly refer to. Nor, I suspect, is it a surprise to learn that almost anything perceived to be bad has been stuck under these labels. Moreover, both sides in any one conflict point at the other and say “evil ones”, consider that in England the pox was known as “the French disease” and in France as the “la maladie anglaise” (the English disease).

So, what is the point I am making with all this? basically that one should not be so quick to give up freedoms and civil rights in the name of “anti-terror” and one should definitely not be so quick to allow atrocities (like GW2 etc) in the name of a “war on terror”. Fear should be no excuse to take away that which is our right. why? because in 5/10/20/50/Our-grandchildren’s times the cumulative effect will be awful and it will be like 1984.

That is what V for Vendetta was trying to say.

I don’t fear the bombers of London. I was on the tube to Liverpool St the next day and I don’t look at Muslims any differently than I did before. It is as one old man in London is claimed to have said:
“I’ve been bombed by a better class of ###### than this!”

Standing up against my government on this issue is something I take very seriously. I will do everything in my power as a citizen to bring to book those that use terrorist activities to forwards a political agenda on behalf of the US, or those who use fear to break down the high level of civil rights that makes England the place it is and could be.

That’s the point. There is no non-pejorative term for terrorism.

QUOTE
If we work to a dispassionate view of what Terrorism is then we can define a Terrorist by their actions.

The problem is you cannot define those actions as to be distinct from those of many other forms of violence, such as “Freedom fighting” etc.

The whole “Terrorists only attack civilians” is a useless definition for many reasons:

1. They clearly don’t.
2. Many groups, including our own governments, attack civilians all the time.

Anyway, this is essentially proving the point of the thread, which is that the term terrorism has been abused and misused in the most degrading way by successive western governments (and others) and is now basically valueless.

Moreover, the emotive associations of the word are so regularly abused and re-enforced that the term “terrorist” now can never be separated from them.

The larger issue is to realise that such manipulation is absolutely everywhere in the media, all fueled by, and to the benefit of, certain individuals and groups. By none other than the very people who are supposed to be working for us.

I, personally, can see the Fnords.

That’s the point. There is no non-pejorative term for terrorism.

QUOTE
If we work to a dispassionate view of what Terrorism is then we can define a Terrorist by their actions.

The problem is you cannot define those actions as to be distinct from those of many other forms of violence, such as “Freedom fighting” etc.

The whole “Terrorists only attack civilians” is a useless definition for many reasons:

1. They clearly don’t.
2. Many groups, including our own governments, attack civilians all the time.

Anyway, this is essentially proving the point of the thread, which is that the term terrorism has been abused and misused in the most degrading way by successive western governments (and others) and is now basically valueless.

Moreover, the emotive associations of the word are so regularly abused and re-enforced that the term “terrorist” now can never be separated from them.

The larger issue is to realise that such manipulation is absolutely everywhere in the media, all fueled by, and to the benefit of, certain individuals and groups. By none other than the very people who are supposed to be working for us.

I, personally, can see the Fnords.

Terrorist, I think we can agree, is a bloated term almost devoid of any definitive meaning. Like, for example, “art” or “love”, or perhaps “truth”.

There are many kinds of terror and indeed they are all, from the point of view of those suffering them, bad.

The government has learned not to call the middle eastern fighters “terrorists” unless they are in our country. When in Iraq they are now called “insurgents”. Quite how you can “‘inserge” in your own country is beyond me, but that is the new “label of evil”.

Things have always been this way and governments, kings, those in power, have always liked to give a name to a fear, a label, with which they can directly refer to. Nor, I suspect, is it a surprise to learn that almost anything perceived to be bad has been stuck under these labels. Moreover, both sides in any one conflict point at the other and say “evil ones”, consider that in England the pox was known as “the French disease” and in France as the “la maladie anglaise” (the English disease).

So, what is the point I am making with all this? basically that one should not be so quick to give up freedoms and civil rights in the name of “anti-terror” and one should definitely not be so quick to allow atrocities (like GW2 etc) in the name of a “war on terror”. Fear should be no excuse to take away that which is our right. why? because in 5/10/20/50/Our-grandchildren’s times the cumulative effect will be awful and it will be like 1984.

That is what V for Vendetta was trying to say.

I don’t fear the bombers of London. I was on the tube to Liverpool St the next day and I don’t look at Muslims any differently than I did before. It is as one old man in London is claimed to have said:
“I’ve been bombed by a better class of ###### than this!”

Standing up against my government on this issue is something I take very seriously. I will do everything in my power as a citizen to bring to book those that use terrorist activities to forwards a political agenda on behalf of the US, or those who use fear to break down the high level of civil rights that makes England the place it is and could be.

Not all ‘Freedom Fighters’ are terrorists.

Terrorism is a strategy. As is Insurgency. As is a more conventional war.

The choice of strategy is generally pragmatic but can be morally influenced (e.g. only targeting military targets).

Suicide bombing is a tactic that is part of the Terrorism strategy. It could equally fall into any of the other strategies but probably wouldn’t be employed in the same manner. It is a symptom of the overbearing security that the opposing group has to face, it is simply more effective to blow yourself up than to try and hide a device then escape. IED’s have matured from shells hidden at the road side to the use of shaped Platter charges as they are more effective. Bombing a restaurant has matured to walking into a restaurant and blowing yourself up. What the US would define as evolving TTP.

The definition of a Terrorist is then easy. It is someone who is taking part in a campaign that is using the Terrorism strategy.

QUOTE
Source:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought,” (Schmid, 1988).

Not all ‘Freedom Fighters’ are terrorists.

Terrorism is a strategy. As is Insurgency. As is a more conventional war.

The choice of strategy is generally pragmatic but can be morally influenced (e.g. only targeting military targets).

Suicide bombing is a tactic that is part of the Terrorism strategy. It could equally fall into any of the other strategies but probably wouldn’t be employed in the same manner. It is a symptom of the overbearing security that the opposing group has to face, it is simply more effective to blow yourself up than to try and hide a device then escape. IED’s have matured from shells hidden at the road side to the use of shaped Platter charges as they are more effective. Bombing a restaurant has matured to walking into a restaurant and blowing yourself up. What the US would define as evolving TTP.

The definition of a Terrorist is then easy. It is someone who is taking part in a campaign that is using the Terrorism strategy.

QUOTE
Source:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought,” (Schmid, 1988).