Terrorists or something else...

[Bar]

With today being the 7th of July the media has increased its reporting on terrorism in general. From the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq to domestic incidents and in one case a shooting.

It has however got me thinking about the term terrorism and more importantly is that the right word we should be using. The word terrorism is defined as:

“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”

That seems to give it certain legitimacy in some people’s eyes. It also could be applied to those considered as freedom fighters (see French/Dutch resistance during WWII). This spawned the saying

”One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”

Surely then it would make more sense to deem them criminals and remove any patina of legitimacy. First and foremost these people are breaking the law. Thus they are criminals regardless of reason or intent they are criminals to be scorned and pitied.

Not only are they criminals they are also cowards as they refuse to identify themselves and stand up openly for what they believe in.

The question therefore is should they be referred to as Terrorists or Criminals and would it have any affect on the battle for hearts and minds which ultimately is the only way they will stop? Or would it be viewed as propaganda and thus have a negative affect at combating these people?


To the dons: I appreciate that this would normally sit in SC but due to the predictability of the responses I have posted it in GD to gain a broader understanding of peoples views and opinions.

 

[Roughneck]

delete

 

[Messiah Khan]

you reap what you sew

in other words lets get out of Iraq and Afganistan and let the US play the world policeman where no longer a superpower or even a major power and its time we realised that.

we have no buiseness in these countrys lets get out and then we wont have terroist bombers in our country

Agreed. Although we have helped create the mess in Iraq, so I think its also our responsibility to stay until it is relatively stable. If we pack our bags and leave now, the mess we leave behind will simply come back to haunt us in years to come, most likely in the form of a government even worse than Sadam's one.

 

[Visage]

With today being the 7th of July the media has increased its reporting on terrorism in general. From the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq to domestic incidents and in one case a shooting.

It has however got me thinking about the term terrorism and more importantly is that the right word we should be using. The word terrorism is defined as:

“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”

That seems to give it certain legitimacy in some people’s eyes. It also could be applied to those considered as freedom fighters (see French/Dutch resistance during WWII). This spawned the saying

”One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”

Surely then it would make more sense to deem them criminals and remove any patina of legitimacy. First and foremost these people are breaking the law. Thus they are criminals regardless of reason or intent they are criminals to be scorned and pitied.

Not only are they criminals they are also cowards as they refuse to identify themselves and stand up openly for what they believe in.

The question therefore is should they be referred to as Terrorists or Criminals and would it have any affect on the battle for hearts and minds which ultimately is the only way they will stop? Or would it be viewed as propaganda and thus have a negative affect at combating these people?


To the dons: I appreciate that this would normally sit in SC but due to the predictability of the responses I have posted it in GD to gain a broader understanding of peoples views and opinions.

But (in light of the oft quoted phrase that you've repeat c.f freedom fighters), does that not mean that we should classify groups such as the French resistance as criminals then?

That seems somewhat harsh, given that they were only doing what a lot of us would do if our country was invaded?

 

[Luseac]

we have no buiseness in these countrys lets get out and then we wont have terroist bombers in our country

The US weren't in Afganistan or Iraq in September 2001.

 

[Roughneck]

delete

 

[Visage]

The US weren't in Afganistan or Iraq in September 2001.

I suspect this is the first time that this picture is truly appropriate

 

[theleg]

That seems to give it certain legitimacy in some people’s eyes. It also could be applied to those considered as freedom fighters (see French/Dutch resistance during WWII). This spawned the saying

”One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”.

Not all terrorists are freedom fighters and not all freedom fighters are terrorists..

and not all terrorists are bad...the french resistance carried out terrorist attacks, but against the german military forces rather than the wives and children of the german military...Thats the difference.

 

[Bar]

But (in light of the oft quoted phrase that you've repeat c.f freedom fighters), does that not mean that we should classify groups such as the French resistance as criminals then?

That seems somewhat harsh, given that they were only doing what a lot of us would do if our country was invaded?

The French Freedom fighters were technically criminals who were reprieved of their crimes (where appropriate) after the war.

The area is grey, it has to be, I believe that branding them criminals means they are dealt with through an existing approved justice system and will hopefully reduce their appeal and legitimacy

Oh and would it be possible for one of the dons to prune the dross from this thread - cheers.

 

[Luseac]

There was me thinking we invaded Iraq in 2003 and Afganistan in October 2001....

 

[VIRII]

we have no buiseness in these countrys lets get out and then we wont have terroist bombers in our country

Sounds simple. Sounds true. Sadly it isn't. Canada has played no part in any of these events but has an Islamic terrorist problem.
What about holland - they've suffered acts of extreme islamic violence as well.

So sadly you're wrong.

 

[Roughneck]

delete

 

[axe]

where no longer a superpower or even a major power

I think you will find we are

 

[Roughneck]

delete

 

[jezsoup]

The US weren't in Afganistan or Iraq in September 2001.

Well said!!

 

[VIRII]

on the scale that we have ? I dont think so my friend

dont remember 56 people getting blown up in Toronto or Amsterdam or did I blink and miss it , seems Im not so wrong

I guess there's a lot that you don't know and your lack of knowledge about these issues doesn't mean that you are correct, nor do we measure such things purely in the numbers killed.

Perhaps you need to look at the Islamic riots around Europe recently, the 17 arrests in Canada over plans to kidnap the primeminister there by Islamic militants, the murders in Holland and soon to get a slightly stronger grip on reality.
Our Islamic issues are not a result of Iraq or Afghanistan, they are a result of Islam itself causing problems for non muslims all across the globe.

 

[VIRII]

haha is that why we can only send 3600 to afganistan

lmao wake up my friend. This country is suffering from living in the past

Islam suffers from living inthe past. islam suffers from following the stories ofa bloke who lived 1600 years ago. That is living in the past. Our military capabilities appear to be another thing that you lack knowledge of, again you think it is about raw numbers.
The falklands incident is a classic example of what small numbers of skilled soldiers can achieve against raw numbers.

 

[axe]

The United Kingdom fields one of the most powerful and comprehensive armed forces in the World. Its global power projection capabilities are second only to those of the United States Military. The UK has the 3rd highest military expenditure in the world, despite only having the 27th highest number of troops. It is also the second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology.

 

[Roughneck]

delete

 

[Bar]

Islam in itself is not at fault.

The interpretation and application by a small number of power mad lunatics is where the fault is.

People turn to religion as they feel there is something missing in their lives. Nothing wrong with this at all. The greater the feeling the more prone they are to following an extremist way.

In order to deal with this issue we need to start dealing with the root causes not the symptoms.

1) One of the things I admire about Muslims and Islam is the sense of family and community. Everyone supports and helps each other (granted within their particular stream) This is a great thing but also brings with it greater responsibility. Muslims must look within their families and identify and report extremists within their midst. I have no doubt whatsoever that people are either living in denial or actively hiding extremists. If they are not willing to report them I do believe that they place their faith and morals above the laws and principals of this country (UK). If that is the case they have no place within our shores and should be made to leave. This also applies to non Muslims who hide criminals.
2) Education and reduction in poverty will go along way to helping out the current situation which is where I believe the term terrorist should be replaced with criminal. Do not give anyone the chance to view a terrorist as a good thing. They are criminals and they are cowards and should be named as such.