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
 

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.

Re: State of Fear
 

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]

Re: State of Fear
 

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

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

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.

Re: State of Fear
 

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.

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
 

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

Re: State of Fear
 

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.

Re: State of Fear
 

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.

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
 

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.

Re: State of Fear
 

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
 

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

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.

Re: State of Fear
 

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'.