State of Fear

[Angrist]

The Netherlands have joined you. People are terrified of terrorism. Look what happened 2 days ago, while there was a ceremony to honor the people who died in WW2.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PJIC79I7t90&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PJIC79I7t90&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

One homeless drunk started screaming, the rest got scared and tried to get out as fast as possible. Nobody died, but at around 65 people broke a leg or wrist.
When the guy started shouting, people were reminded of Queen's Day of last year, where a guy drove in on a crowd, killing about 8 people.
Here's some shocking amateur images if you want to see it. Warning: you'll see dead people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74aVO60WDaA

Last year's attack was terrible. This year, nothing really happened. Is fear a bigger enemy than terrorism?

(Edit: I forgot about the Politics forum, maybe move it there? Thanks.)

[Typhoid]

Is fear a bigger enemy than terrorism?

I'd arguably say fear is terrorism. Look how popular that phrase "terrorism" has become in the last decade. It's not only synonymous with Muslims and brown people, but explosions in your own country - regardless of where you live.

I don't think the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" should be allowed to be used anymore. The words alone spread fear and terror among the masses.

But I guess that's what is wanted. Keep the people scared, and you keep them yours.

But to answer the question directly, fear will always be the most powerful emotion in existence, and the most widely exploited emotion.

[Professor S]

I'd arguably say fear is terrorism. Look how popular that phrase "terrorism" has become in the last decade. It's not only synonymous with Muslims and brown people, but explosions in your own country - regardless of where you live.

I don't think the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" should be allowed to be used anymore. The words alone spread fear and terror among the masses.

But I guess that's what is wanted. Keep the people scared, and you keep them yours.

But to answer the question directly, fear will always be the most powerful emotion in existence, and the most widely exploited emotion.

Its in the name: TERRORIST. Their intent is to spread fear, and it looks as if they are successful.

As for outlawing the name, will that make them not exist?

Also, what other "brown people" do we associate terrorism with? Native Americans? Mexicans? Africans? No. It's Arabs (to a lesser extent Persians) and more specifically Muslims in general. Lets not be completely ignorant in our never-ending march towards political correctness and the efforts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as racists.[/step off soapbox]

[Typhoid]

Also, what other "brown people" do we associate terrorism with?

None. That's why I said it's used for 'brown people' meaning the typical North American view of the Middle East.

It's Arabs (to a lesser extent Persians) and more specifically Muslims in general.

Good, then we agree. Because that's what I said. I'm glad you're backing me up on this.

Lets not be completely ignorant in our never-ending march towards political correctness and the efforts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as racists.

Yeah, political correctness is a pile of nigger fag cunt shit. It should be outlawed just like those damn spiks taking all of our good American jobs.

Nothing I said in this thread was on the note of "political correctness". It's been said because it's the truth. Ask anyone on the street to describe a terrorist, and 90% of the time they'll describe a Muslim, or a brown guy. There are white terrorists. Terrorism doesn't have a face, colour, or religion. Yet that's the way it's used now.

But this is entirely beside the point of the thread, and let's not try derail the original topic of this one, hey.

[Professor S]

Nothing I said in this thread was on the note of "political correctness". It's been said because it's the truth. Ask anyone on the street to describe a terrorist, and 90% of the time they'll describe a Muslim, or a brown guy. There are white terrorists. Terrorism doesn't have a face, colour, or religion. Yet that's the way it's used now.

Wow, for someone who states that nothing they say involves political correctness, you sure express a ton of it in your opinion on terrorism. For the record, there are a lot of "brown people" all over the world. If you intend to address only those that live in the Middle East, I recommend being more specific.

Do we really need to have a conversation about the backgrounds of 90% (not an exact figure, obviously) of the terrorists in the world? Do we? Are we this intellectually dishonest and oblivious to the world around us? Do we know the religious background of the people currently declaring "JIHAD" against the US and the West in general?

Saying that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim is not the same as saying all Muslims are terrorists or that there aren't non-muslim terrorists. The former is a statement of the obvious. The latter is a statement of ignorance.

Public discourse seems to have reduced to the point that people cannot make reasonable observations about the world around them without having some kind of evil attributed to them. Dear God what have we come to... Not all inconvenient thought is offensive.

[TheGame]

The provlem with the word "terrorist" is that it has too broad of a definition, but at the same time it's used to define middle easterns mostly.. I'll give you a perfect example, Joe Stack. Why is there even a QUESTION about if this guy is a terrorist or not? If a middle eastern did the same exact thing he did, they'd be labeled a terrorist instantly... But it's still up for debate, because he's white. Period.

[Angrist]

Ehm that's nice and all, but most of the terrorism here in Holland isn't caused by muslims. It's white people. I think Theo van Gogh is the only one killed by a muslim.
And guess what? He's the only one the American news paid attention to.

[TheGame]

Ehm that's nice and all, but most of the terrorism here in Holland isn't caused by muslims. It's white people. I think Theo van Gogh is the only one killed by a muslim.
And guess what? He's the only one the American news paid attention to.

Same in America, it's mostly white people who do terrorism on our soil.

[Professor S]

Ehm that's nice and all, but most of the terrorism here in Holland isn't caused by muslims. It's white people. I think Theo van Gogh is the only one killed by a muslim.
And guess what? He's the only one the American news paid attention to.

I wasn't arguing the cause of terrorism in your country (if this was aimed at my comments, they could easily be aimed at Typh's), but Typhoid's oversimplification use of the generic "brown people", as if there is no other reason than racism why people make assumptions about the backgrounds of most terrorists.

Most terrorism in Northern Ireland isn't by Muslims either, but that does not change world wide realities, especially in the US and much of continental Europe.

[Typhoid]

I wasn't arguing the cause of terrorism in your country (if this was aimed at my comments, they could easily be aimed at Typh's), but Typhoid's oversimplification use of the generic "brown people", as if there is no other reason than racism why people make assumptions about the backgrounds of most terrorists.

You misunderstood.
I wasn't saying we call brown people terrorists to be racist.
I was just saying the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are now synonymous with the middle east, and is inherently an unfair word now, because of the stigma that the words have with brown people.

[The Germanator]

The biggest wrong with the word "terrorist" is that it more describes a "style" of warfare rather than an actual enemy. We're specifically fighting Afghanis? Great! We're specifically fighting Iraqis? Great! We're fighting Saudi Arabians! Great! We're fighting our own citizens? Great! Individuals who plan these attacks don't belong to any one group, which makes it so difficult. It's why attacking whole countries has been hard for me to swallow. I understand individuals harbor to certain countries, but that's why it's always been tough for me to handle specific WARS on Iraq and Afghanistan...

[Professor S]

The biggest wrong with the word "terrorist" is that it more describes a "style" of warfare rather than an actual enemy. We're specifically fighting Afghanis? Great! We're specifically fighting Iraqis? Great! We're fighting Saudi Arabians! Great! We're fighting our own citizens? Great! Individuals who plan these attacks don't belong to any one group, which makes it so difficult. It's why attacking whole countries has been hard for me to swallow. I understand individuals harbor to certain countries, but that's why it's always been tough for me to handle specific WARS on Iraq and Afghanistan...

I see what you're saying (and what Typh is saying), but that leaves us in a very sticky situation. What about nations that harbor terrorists, or like in the case of Iran, even fund and arm them (but claim ignorance)? Terrorism isn't a people, but an unlawful and unprotected style of warfare intended to force political action by creating fear not in a government, but in a constituency. It is, quite honestly, aimed directly at democracy (dictatorships wouldn't care if their people were terrorized) and that makes it even more dangerous because it has the potential to create environments that encourage people to remove their own freedoms to protect themselves.*

In the end, even if you fight terrorism as a police action, you are still fighting a very specific type of combatant with distinct political motives. Whether you call it terrorism or not, there will be a name applied, and eventually that name will have the same stigma "terrorist" has today. I suppose I don't see the point or abolishing the name.

*By the way, this is another example of why the Constitution is such a brilliant document. It grants inalienable rights that people can't vote away.

ANGRIST: Sorry I hijacked this thing. What is the major reason given for terrorism in your country? We hear so much about Islamic extremists and Irish separatists that other motives and examples get lost. I'm curious.

[Typhoid]

I see what you're saying (and what Typh is saying), but that leaves us in a very sticky situation. What about nations that harbor terrorists, or like in the case of Iran, even fund and arm them (but claim ignorance)? Terrorism isn't a people, but an unlawful and unprotected style of warfare intended to force political action by creating fear not in a government, but in a constituency. It is, quite honestly, aimed directly at democracy (dictatorships wouldn't care if their people were terrorized) and that makes it even more dangerous because it has the potential to create environments that encourage people to remove their own freedoms to protect themselves.*

In the end, even if you fight terrorism as a police action, you are still fighting a very specific type of combatant with distinct political motives.


I watched a documentary the other week on Timothy McVeigh (OKC Bomber), and it was actually very interesting. First of all, he was the only American I've ever heard referred to as a "terrorist". Which is okay. Equality and all that.

However, to touch on what you said about "Terrorism is aimed at Democracy", I say that quote isn't accurate. McVeigh started planning his act of terrorism to try incite a militia revolt of a country he deemed to be in a tyrannical federal government (based on his view of the Waco Seige - I believe it was).

Also, the end of the documentary really frustrated me because it basically ended with an old woman saying "Americans just don't do that sort of thing" - and it's that level of ignorance I dislike.

But I was also going to say the problem I have with a "war on terrorism" is you can't fight terrorism. Terrorism isn't a country, or an area. It's a blanket name for rebels and militias from multiple countries all around the world who do terrible acts in order to try get a 'point' of their specific group across. "Terrorism" has been happening for hundreds of years. Fighting terrorism begets more terrorism. Now, clearly this doesn't mean leaving it alone will do nothing. But you can't go to war with an entire country just because of some pissed off dude from that country attacked you. That would be like a Civil War breaking out after the McVeigh bombing.

[Professor S]

However, to touch on what you said about "Terrorism is aimed at Democracy", I say that quote isn't accurate. McVeigh started planning his act of terrorism to try incite a militia revolt of a country he deemed to be in a tyrannical federal government (based on his view of the Waco Seige - I believe it was).

Isn't the act of inciting a armed revolt against a democratically elected government an attack on democracy? I fail to see the difference.

Also, the end of the documentary really frustrated me because it basically ended with an old woman saying "Americans just don't do that sort of thing" - and it's that level of ignorance I dislike.

Well, outside of a few notable exceptions, Americans DON'T do that sort of thing. I'm not sure how her comments are ignorant. Canadians don't either, or a number of other cultures/nations, and we certainly do not tolerate such groups living among us (knowingly).

Contrary to current political rhetoric, not everything is the same for everyone, everywhere.

[Typhoid]

Isn't the act of inciting a armed revolt against a democratically elected government an attack on democracy? I fail to see the difference.

The difference is he didn't view it as a democracy. He wasn't doing it to attack democracy. He was doing it to (in his mind) overthrow a 'tyrannical dictatorship that kills it's own people and lets them die'.

[Professor S]

The difference is he didn't view it as a democracy. He wasn't doing it to attack democracy. He was doing it to (in his mind) overthrow a 'tyrannical dictatorship that kills it's own people and lets them die'.

... because he did not agree with the actions of a democratically elected government. His "point of view" is meaningless. His actions compared to an objective view of reality are what should be measured.

No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact.

[Typhoid]

... because he did not agree with the actions of a democratically elected government. His "point of view" is meaningless. His actions compared to an objective view of reality are what should be measured.

No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact.


Saying it's an attack on democracy itself just because the governing body of the country it took place happens to be democratic is as equal a stretch as saying the OKC bombing was an attack on city planners, and 9/11 was an attack against skyscrapers and building codes.

I don't see how his [since this is what we're talking about now] actions of blowing up a building because he viewed the government killed its own people as an attack on democracy. If anything, it's an attack on the country, or those in charge. Not the government-style that country has. And no - an attack on a democratic country, or democratically elected officials is not an attack on democracy. He didn't want to overthrow the type of government, just wasn't impressed with those in charge.

But we should stop this.
It's entirely off-topic.

[Professor S]

If you resort to violence against a democratically elected government (legitimate, of course), you are attacking democracy because you have obviously given up on the idea that the government can change via electoral choice. There is no other reason to resort to such drastic measures in a democracy.

Terrorism is the use of violent acts to create political change by manipulating the fears of the constituency. It is the antithesis of the democratic process, therefore, all terrorism inherently assaults democracy itself.

But we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. And for the record, I did try and get the thread back on topic.

[TheGame]

Do you consider the attack at columbine terrorism? Do you consider Joe Stack flying a plane into the federal building terrorism?

[Typhoid]

There is no other reason to resort to such drastic measures in a democracy.

Insanity, religion, misguided hate.

[Professor S]

Insanity, religion, misguided hate.

Once again, you are bringing up motivation. Motivation is meaningless. The act is anti-democratic, and all we can judge in this world is actions... unless you have some wonderful psychic powers I am unaware of. If you resort to violence against a legitimate democracy (or democratic republic, etc.) to get your political will achieved, you have turned against democracy. The mental state of the assailant is immaterial.

[Typhoid]

Once again, you are bringing up motivation.

Of course I was bringing up motivation.
You said there was no reason to do any act of terrorism on a democratic government other than to attack democracy.
I was answering that statement by saying "Well, of course there are other reasons to do acts of terrorism, such as religion, pure insanity, or just misguided hate."


If you resort to violence against a legitimate democracy to get your political will achieved, you have turned against democracy.

Yes, but not every act of terrorism is to overthrow a government, or to send a message to that government saying you're not pleased with the way it's run.

[Professor S]

Of course I was bringing up motivation.
You said there was no reason to do any act of terrorism on a democratic government other than to attack democracy.
I was answering that statement by saying "Well, of course there are other reasons to do acts of terrorism, such as religion, pure insanity, or just misguided hate."

Hmmm... True, I worded my point incorrectly. You responded as it was presented. The remainder of my response reflects my feelings on terrorism and democracy.

Yes, but not every act of terrorism is to overthrow a government, or to send a message to that government saying you're not pleased with the way it's run.

I never claimed it was either of those things. True terrorism is using violence to create political change by terrifying those in the democracy, and in the most definitive cases the acts of terror are not aimed at government installations, but at innocent civilians. The people do not acquiesce because they agree with the policies of the terrorists, but out of self-preservation, therefore bypassing the democratic process to achieve their goals. Beyond the scope of the political goals, this is no different than a dictator gaining or retaining political power through force.

[Angrist]

ANGRIST: Sorry I hijacked this thing. What is the major reason given for terrorism in your country? We hear so much about Islamic extremists and Irish separatists that other motives and examples get lost. I'm curious.
I don't know what reason is given for the terrorism in our country. Perhaps that's because nobody here has tried to blame something/someone for what happened.
In 2002 political party leader Pim Fortuyn was murdered. He was very anti-immigration. He was not killed by a muslim, nor was he killed for being anti-immigration. He was killed by a guy from my study town (Wageningen), because Pim Fortuyn was also pro-fur. The murderer was smart and educated. My town apparently 'harbors' left extremists (we do have a lot of hippies here).
So it was just 1 guy who thought it was better for the country if Pim Fortuyn died.

In 2004 Theo van Gogh was killed by a muslim extremist with both the Dutch and Maroccan nationality. Apparently Van Gogh had insulted the islam, I didn't really follow the news.

In 2009 eight people were killed by a anti royal family guy who drove in on a crowd close to the royal family.

Animal rights organizations also use terrorism from time to time. They torched a butchery, threw in windows of a McDonalds, liberated animals, threatened people, etc.

Other than that, there have been several arrests of muslims, but no actions of terrorism. I guess we're too sober to start blaming everything/everybody.

[Professor S]

While all of those things are awful, I would not consider most of them terrorism, except for the Animal rights examples. Other than that they seem like assassination attempts or just flat out homicide.

[Angrist]

So why do they often use the example of Theo van Gogh?

And whether or not the assassin on Koninginnedag 2009 had terroristic motives, believe me that people were terrorized after the attack. The original post of this thread proves that.

[Professor S]

So why do they often use the example of Theo van Gogh?

I think the van Gogh example is a poor one for terrorism. If I remember correctly, his death was an "honor killing". Those are very personal and not very political. I don't think the intent of the attack was to change public policy, and to that is integral to true terrorism. I think sometimes the lines tend to blur with

I agree with Typh that terrorism is overused and often in ways that are inapplicable, especially when Muslims are involved, I simply don't agree that the word needs to be retired. We need to call things what they are by the true definition, not by the nationality/ethnicity of the person involved.

[Professor S]

SPAM is terrorism. Case closed.