Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
|
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.