So you're a terrorist

[Gigano]

All anyone should be concerned about is how to kill or capture them.

Changing up your society to avoid terrorism - i.e. out of fear of terrorism - is inherently wrong, so there's no reason to speculate on how to better accommodate to such criminals.

If free and democratic society as it is radicalise them, then so be it. They pose much less of a threat than ordinary criminals anyway, just look up the general murder rates and compare them to terrorist related deaths; utterly insignificant in comparison.

 

[Jedamethis]

Fuck should I know? Really, as far as I'm concerned killing people who have not wronged you is...evil.

But then I suppose some terrorists feel they have been wronged somehow, and I wish we could find out how...

best way to find out how would be to study history. Particulairly how the Americans funded Islamic radicals when they needed someone to fight the Russians and abandoned them to die when the cold war ended.
Sadly far to many Americans have a short memory on these things and forget they had a hand to play in it too, and Sadly the extreme view being held by radical muslims that Americans are evil is being echoed by many Americans who just want to say all muslims are evil. The best thing for everyone may have been to turn the other cheek, mourn our losses and go on living, the fighting only brings the opportunity for more hate.

Hmm. I am intrigued. Thank you.

Spoiler: TO THE INTERNET HISTORY LEARNING PLACE!

 

[BabySinclair]

Well if there were a bunch of people with a different culture invading the US with guns and tanks I'd start bombing military sites, no question. I will defend my homeland even if it gets me killed and demonized. I don't have access to a militia, not in the military, nor do I own a gun; need be though I know how to learn how to make explosives and defend my country through guerrilla tactics.

Where the line for me is drawn is civilian targets, I'll stick to the guys that aren't from here, hard to rebuild a country post-occupation/invasion if you kill off half the American populace to get rid of the invading army.

So I can understand why people do it, they view their way of life as being threatened, people don't like change and lets face it, the Western World loves sticking its nose in other cultures and telling people how to change the way they live their lives, people take offense to that.

 

[Lord Kloo]

People who believe that their cause is worth collateral damage and self sacrifice (or just sacrifice)..

The current terrorists who live in deserts and caves in the middle east are just like our soldiers we send over there, just a little less organized or powerful but both political weapons of their masters and beliefs..

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - It depends what side you're on as to if the people in question are terrorists or not, look at Home-front (the game), the American 'freedom fighters' in that are heroes yet the 'freedom fighters' in the Real Life middle east are classed as terrorists (by the West)..

TBH, there was once a time when I would have considered becoming a terrorist to defend my homeland but now I care very little for political change, by weapons or words..

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Idk, I've contemplated this. Being American we're kind of raised to respond our forefathers who fought for the right to own our country. Back when being an American was still honorable and all that jazz.
What they taught ME is that the government is so backwards now that we've gone full circle. If there was another continent on this planet that wasn't colonized yet I bet you a shit ton of Americans would run there and start another country. lol
My point is, I've contemplated a second civil war, one to actually fix this bullshit. Of course the system of power in America is so complex that I doubt a bunch of pissed off people could just pick it all up and start over, plus the modern military would crush a rebellion instantly.
But yeah, it's crossed me mind.
Surely building a secret army and taking steps to overthrow those in power would be considered terrorism.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I feel dirty just typing this, but why don't ferries get bombed more often? It's just as dramatic as planes, but seems to be considerably easier. Ditto buses and trains.

Ugh. Hate myself. Feel like I've just spat on the victims of the 7/7 bombings.

 

[FortheLegion]

I think I would do pretty well at being a terrorist. I already know how to make all sorts of bombs. I have most of the necessary components of home made explosives, and I know exactly where I would strike.

 

[Steve Butts]

As someone else already said, terrorism is defined as the use of terror through violence for political purposes. That makes it distinct from the non-violent politically motivated terror of people like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann.

Even with that objective definition, a lot depends on the outcome. The American colonists beat the British, so we call it a Revolution. The Confederate States lost to the Union, so we call it a Civil War. So were Sherman's March to the Sea or the Boston Tea Party acts of terrorism? Does it just come down to who wins?

 

[MBergman]

Terrorist:
? n
a. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

Terrorism:
?noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Courtesy of Dictionary.com

Thank you for posting the definition.

Any parent is a terrorist for they use fear of punishment to control their children. But the ones who say they are against terrorism the most is the same group who committed the 2 largest terrorists acts in history. Hitler's men killed 3 mil in short bursts over the course of a few years, the US killed over 500,000 civilians in 2 go's. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the worst terrorist acts in history.
Justify it however you want, realize that all things you consider terrorist acts can be "justified" as well. The Japs bombed a military facility at Pearl Harbor (killing roughly 2000 military personnel just over half of which consists of the crew of the Arizona), we bombed civilian cities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This right here.

I don't think there's a person on this earth who calls him or herself a terrorist. That's a label given by someone else. But as quoted here, the USA very much qualify for being terrorists themselves.

 

[Riddle78]

Step One) Locate powerplant
Step Two) Gather explosives,weapons,ammunition,and cohorts
Step Three) Invade and take over powerplant
Step Four) Plant explosives inside powerplant
Step Five) Evacuate from powerplant
Step Six) Detonate remotely,no countdown
Step Seven) Repeat from Step One.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Usually when I hear about why a terrorist did something, its cause they were either tricked or broken into it.

So were Sherman's March to the Sea

Sherman's March is called <url=http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Total_war>Total War. It was a set part of war, and a strategy approved by Lincoln. He went far in his means, but thats not terrorism. It was a military campaign.

 

[Steve Butts]

Sherman's March is called <url=http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Total_war>Total War. It was a set part of war, and a strategy approved by Lincoln. He went far in his means, but thats not terrorism. It was a military campaign.

Well, saying it was approved by Lincoln might be overstating things a bit. Lincoln definitely gave Sherman a free hand in Georgia, but he had serious reservations. For the record, I don't think Sherman was a terrorist, but his strategy nevertheless applied military power in a psychological sphere where demoralizing civilians was one of the main aims.

 

[Souplex]

The dictionary definition of terrorist is:

Someone who uses fear for a political agenda

The news, politicians, and many others are terrorists under it's actual definition.
We've just distorted the meaning to mean anti-western anti-government insurgents.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Sherman's March is called <url=http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Total_war>Total War. It was a set part of war, and a strategy approved by Lincoln. He went far in his means, but thats not terrorism. It was a military campaign.

Well, saying it was approved by Lincoln might be overstating things a bit. Lincoln definitely gave Sherman a free hand in Georgia, but he had serious reservations. For the record, I don't think Sherman was a terrorist, but his strategy nevertheless applied military power in a psychological sphere where demoralizing civilians was one of the main aims.

Oka, I'll agree on the lincoln part, and I can see your reasoning. However, just based on it was a military campaign that Lincoln in some part did green light (maybe not that severity, put he did tell him to take Selma) and that this is a tactic of war, I believe it transcends terrorism.

Though I'll agree, or at least acknowledge, that I the Boston Tea Party was a terroristic attack against Britain. Just the Sherman march struck me as odd, since both Hitler and Napoleon invoked a similar strategy when they tried to invade Russia.

 

[gellert1984]

Terrorist:
? n
a. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

Terrorism:
?noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Courtesy of Dictionary.com

See to me that describes a lot of politicians and not a few media outlets.

more or less OT: I find it interesting that a group of people are using religion to wage a war in middle east against the west, and in the west another group of people are using religion to wage a war against a gender.

In my mind these people are terrorists not freedom fighters, a freedom fighter is exactly that, a person who fights for the freedom of his or her self, there family, nation, creed or religion. These insurgents aren't fighting for freedom they're fighting for their own enslavement to religious madmen. Except in Iraq, some of them might be fighting for 'freedom' as they view it.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Have any of my fellow escapists wonder what it is like to be a terrorist? I'm not trying to advocate terrorism but have you wondered why people turn toward terrorism? I've heard a quote somewhere, don't remember where, but it was something like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". I'm saying, have you guys questioned why the terrorists are doing the things that they do? Most of us dismiss it as "they're evil" or "they just hate us". If they hate us, what reason do they have? I ask this partly because it is not just Islamic radicals that turn to terrorism but even people within our own countries. Everytime you hear about random shootings or school shootings, this is a type of terrorism. I guess I'm just asking everone to try to look at terrorism from a different perspective.

Well one reason might be to first support them and then turn your backs at them again when they had finished helping you against the commies and leave them in the desperate situation they were hoping to get out of.
But thats of course only a partial answer and very specific in the latest 2 cases (Afghanistan and Iraq).
But usually its some people fed up with something and the unshakable faith that they are to judge and change everything because it is what is best for humanity. And trying so at any cost. A good mixture of anger, desperation and delusion.

 

[Shirokurou]

Terrorism is a method. The French revolutionaries used terrorism.

An enemy is still and enemy and friend is still a friend, despite methods.

 

[redisforever]

I've heard a quote somewhere, don't remember where, but it was something like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

That could have been from the Bond film "Die Another Day"

Anyways, I will go against that with my own quote. Well, not mine, it's George Carlin's.

If a firefighter fights fire, and a crimefighter fights crime, what does a freedom fighter fight?


Yeah, terrorists are dumb, because there is no better way to get what you want, and to get people to side with you, than to blow up some other people...[/sarcasm]

 

[Thaluikhain]

All anyone should be concerned about is how to kill or capture them.

Changing up your society to avoid terrorism - i.e. out of fear of terrorism - is inherently wrong, so there's no reason to speculate on how to better accommodate to such criminals.

If free and democratic society as it is radicalise them, then so be it. They pose much less of a threat than ordinary criminals anyway, just look up the general murder rates and compare them to terrorist related deaths; utterly insignificant in comparison.

But that's the beauty of it.

Kill a small number of people publically, and the public will cry out for extreme measures to stop you. Massive amounts of resources needed to stop many more common or garden deaths will be diverted to minimise the chance of you killing the next handful.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

What??? I have NOOOO idea what your talking about, I'm not a terrorist! Why would you even ask such a question!!

OT: Well, actually I can see exactly where they're coming from... I'm not saying that it's good, but I can understand it at least...