State of Fear
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.
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.) |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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] |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
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.
|
Re: State of Fear
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
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...
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
Quote:
Contrary to current political rhetoric, not everything is the same for everyone, everywhere. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Do you consider the attack at columbine terrorism? Do you consider Joe Stack flying a plane into the federal building terrorism?
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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." Quote:
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
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.
|
Re: State of Fear
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. |
Re: State of Fear
Quote:
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. |
Re: State of Fear
SPAM is terrorism. Case closed.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern