OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

[Gandalf Parker]

Ed Kolis said:
Why... to protect our security?

more like your liberties.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think the terrorists have an impression of what the US is, and they seek to change that impression worldwide. As far as I can see, the most damage done to the "what is USA" as a result of 9/11 has been done by the US. So yes I think the changes did some of what the terrorists wanted.

Of course we have no idea what has been avoided by all of that. Im aware of that but not swayed by it.

[tesco samoa]

hi one question ?

Why ask this question ?

And then one more question

What is a terrorist to you ?

[Colonel]

tesco samoa said:
hi one question ?

Why ask this question ?

And then one more question

What is a terrorist to you ?

Why not ask this question, i thought about this and could figure a good answer so i posted it in a few places

Terrorists are by definition a Rogue Merk (Merceneray) who uses renegade militant tactics to get his (usaully pyscotic) point across

[PvK]

To me, "terrorist" is a word that has been so heavily abused by politicians and corporate media that it no longer has a clear and well-defined meaning.

In general though, I think it means someone who intentionally causes terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect.

PvK

[Will]

PvK said:
To me, "terrorist" is a word that has been so heavily abused by politicians and corporate media that it no longer has a clear and well-defined meaning.

In general though, I think it means someone who intentionally causes terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect.

PvK

"Terrorist", "terrorism", etc. has been very greatly abused lately... but I think your classification needs a bit more refining... mainly, "someone who uses violence to intentionally cause terror, usually to try to make a statement or induce some sort of effect." Because otherwise, Tom Ridge and the Bush Administration could be argued to be terrorists because of continually bumping national alerts to "orange" after quietly changing it back to "yellow", while never once brining the alert level below "yellow". Not saying that they are, only that it can be argued that way.

[PvK]

That's a good point. I wouldn't think the term would apply to people who cause terror without overtly meaning to have that effect. However, I would think a more appropriate argument might be made to say the US government behaved in terroristic fashion for publically test-detonating the "Mother Of All Bombs" and then using rhetoric and attacks about the "Shock And Awe" that the former Iraqi leadership would experience, followed by the corresponding strikes. Those could also be referred to assassination attempts, and be more fairly accurate. I mean those remarks just as attempts to fit definitions to examples, not as anything judgemental. Clearly the administration wanted to impress people with threats and deeds of violence. They hoped some people would think they were good for doing this, but then so do Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers. I'm not trying to vilify to US administration by saying this at all. I'm trying to point out that the label has been abused to become a label of villany, and no longer a descriptive term.

The difficulty is that the media and politicians have abused it to the point where it's a loaded term, and it loses its meaning. Not that it hasn't always been the case that one side's freedom fighter was the opposing side's outlaw murdering traitor scum, etc.

PvK