I have been thinking lately and it seems more and more that the term 'terrorism' just a piece of propaganda that news agencies and governments use to give their public the opinion that the current/pending war against the 'terrorists' of the day is justified and right. The Gaza/Israel conflict seems to be a perfect example of this. Both sides think the other side is a bunch of terrorists, and most unbiased people I would think draw the conclusion that both sides are terrorists. So it does show that there is a strong possibility that the word 'terrorism' is just that, a piece of propaganda used to help win support and justify horrible things. Curious of others opinions on this.
This is an excellent point, and one which is difficult to pound home in the post-911 era. The word may properly be applied to any paramilitary group or government which sanctions violence against civilians. I'm against the term because it is emotionally charged and can be used to demonize anyone...as we saw with Bill Ayers recently. The word has become a license to hunt and kill, as if politically motivated violence was not at the root of all modern "democracies." Of course, the violence itself is lamentable. But the "terrorists" are by definition the enemy of the strongest states...and these are the states responsible for the worst violence.
there are many definitions for the word, and there is that famous saying, that terrorist for some is freedom fighter for others, and no matter how people try to define it, they won't agree on one definition, even the definitions will be used to gain something, like in this definition by the illegal state of Israel: youtube video - ISRAEL'S DEFINITION OF TERRORISM (30 secs)
I am glad other people see this though. I mean, regardless of definition it now seems who ever is against you is a terrorist. Putting aside all rights and wrongs a person doesn't slap a bomb on themselves and go blow themselves and a group of people up for shits and giggles. They do it because they have an agenda and a vision they are trying to materialize and need to fight what they likely consider terrorists in order to accomplish their goals. That being said, I think most people generally only consider small groups to be terrorists... but why? Is a small group trying to achieve a goal by killing people any different than a massive country killing people to achieve a goal?
Terror groups are those who threaten or try to hurt a civilian population in order to get their political goals across. Israel did unfortunately hit civilians ( Reported by Arabic new channels - around 250/800 killed were civilians, aka around 25%-35 ) so there are those who say "Israel is bad", but at the same time you have to look at Hamas - A group that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and shoots rockets daily on civilian populations. Before all of you start preaching about Israel going offensive - Just imagine your home town being bombed and having your country not do shit about it. Now imagine that happens for 8 years, and you'll see how patient Israel is. P.S: Imad, before you preach about your "ISRAEL IS ILLEGAL IT'S NOT A COUNTRY" crap, save it, I'm not reading your messages anymore.
A valid point, but putting the idea of taking sides aside, Israel has a goal, possibly of achieving peace, possibly something else, Hamas is standing in their way of doing so therefore Israel considers Hamas terrorists. Hamas has a goal of destroying Israel, Israeli's are standing in their way of achieving this therefore Hamas considers Israeli's terrorists. Even though we may disagree with the goals either one is trying to achieve we have to recognize that neither side is any different at the most basic point. They have a goal they want and their enemy is preventing them from achieving this goal therefore they consider their enemy a terrorist.
Can you really call it freedom fighter when they are not fighting for freedom but rather control? Is Hamas really fighting for their freedom or are they just fighting to stay in power and continue their holy war?
I guess what it boils down to in my mind and opinion that if you are willing to take either side in a war and define your enemy as a terrorist, you are doing so because they are fighting against you to either try to get their way, or to try and prevent you from getting your way. Which of course means that in the war you are either trying to get your way, or prevent them from getting their way. Regardless of whether the involved parties are countries, groups, or individuals, you have to admit that either both sides are terrorists, or neither side is terrorists as they are essentially both doing exactly the same thing.
Pretty much all of the tactics that Israel uses, whether or not you agree with them, is to address the security concerns of their citizens, or to retaliate to aggression as to deter future acts or diminish the enemy's ability to attack in the future. The goal of terrorists like Hamas is not to provide security to anyone, it is -- in this case -- to provoke Israel into responding "disproportionately" in order to garner sympathy for their ideological cause. So everyone who is currently sympathizing with Hamas, keep in mind, this is exactly what they wanted when they provoked Israel into this. You don't shoot rockets towards people for symbolic reasons as some have claimed. Their intent was to provoke.
If it was symbolic they would have mailed a picture of a rocket. That is a symbol. A real rocket hitting your house is not a symbol it is a rocket.
Ok, so you admit hamas has a goal - You do not agree with Hamas goal so you consider them terrorists. You admit that Israel has a goal - You do agree with it, and therefore consider their enemy at the moment; Hamas, terrorists. If you supported hamas views and goals, you would then consider Israel terrorists would you not?
There is no goal for Hamas. Their goal is the destruction of Israel, as a Jewish land in the Middle East is an insult to Allah. That's not a goal, that's craziness. I'll agree on the fact that Israel really needs to make sure civilians don't get hurt, but don't forget that we're talking about an act of war here. No country would have waited a single week to bomb the hell out of those who shot rockets, Israel waited 8 years. All we need to do now is sit tight, wait and hope that Hamas falls and then you'll definitely see a different picture in Gaza. The alternative to Hamas is Abu Mazen, a guy who really wants peace now and acknowledges Israel and it's right to be a country. Hamas is the source of everything bad that's happening there. If there was no Hamas - there wouldn't have been weapon smuggling and rockets being fired to Israel. If Israel doesn't have to worry about rockets - It doesn't have to put a siege on Gaza and make sure nothing bad goes in there, and if that happens - there's peace.
I don't believe that the qualifying or disqualifying characteristic of a group to be considered terrorists is whether or not they have a goal. If that was a disqualifier then there would be no such thing as terrorists. The definition of terrorism has nothing to do with who you agree or disagree with. Terrorism is a set of tactics used to further an ideological/religious/political agenda. Israel are not terrorists. They are a sovereign nation who have a hand in creating and perpetuating turmoil in the region, but their military operations are pretty much always in response to violent provocation and are usually taken in consideration to the immediate security concerns of its citizens. Let me post this again: Whether or not you agree with Israel or think its responses are disproportionate is irrelevant. Imbalance of military capability or number of casualties is not what defines terrorism.
You just said they did not have a goal, and then right after it stated what their goal is, craziness or not, it is a goal. It is something their are striving to achieve, therefore it is a goal. You do not have to agree with their goal, but for the sake of your logic you do have to admit that they have a goal. I don't understand why you brought the civilian thing up, we were not talking about that. Hamas is the elected governing party of Gaza. If you think they are the source of everything "bad" then you have to admit those who voted for them and their death to Israel platform must be evil as well. If you pay someone to murder your neighbour you are just as guilty as the person actually doing the murdering. But, again... this is not what this topic is about. This topic is about the fact that both sides are terrorists.
I think this is what you are saying, if I am wrong please correct me. So Gaza fires rockets at Israeli citizens who are unarmed... therefore they are considered terrorists. Israel, in a supposid act of defence, killed hundreds of people Gaza... probably some who fired rockets at them, and a whole lot of women and children who did not fire rockets at them and who were unarmed... but Israel is not a terrorist?
We used it first. When George Washington wanted to pressure the french to leave america , terrorist activities were among the methods used to achieve this goal. Its not like its a new phenomenon that just popped into your local fox news station lol.
More or less. Killing people does not equal terrorism, even innocent people. If that was the definition of terrorism then almost every military in every war in history were terrorists. Using the criteria that people are using to call Israel terrorist, pretty much every nation involved militarily in WWII were terrorists. If we broaden the definition to include any group that kills or that kills innocent people, the term becomes useless, which is exactly what the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers want.
Of course the word has been around for a long time, but now it is one of the most mainstream words going. It has to be said on the news at least 5-10 an hour around the clock. Everything is about terrorism now. And it is only used to describe the side your news doesn't want you to want to win. And... oddly enough it is mostly used to describe the least wealthy side of a battle... it is almost a derrogatory term really. If you have tanks, planes, a 100,000 person army than you are a legit operation... if you have 50-2000 guys trying to change the world and all they can afford is the odd bomb here and there, some rockets and rocket launchers then they are terrorists.
Both sides aren't terrorists. As I said, the definition of terrorism is using violence or any other form of casting terror on a civilian population in order to achieve their political agenda. Hamas is the one who is shooting rockets on civilians. Israel may have hurt civilians during these strikes, but it's not trying to purposely do so - their goal is to destroy Hamas. What you did is basically change the term terrorism into "Anyone who uses weapons". So if a maniac is running toward me with a knife and I somehow manage to kill him in an act of self defense, you really can't call me a terrorist. You can't even call him a terrorist, unless he was acting from a political agenda and was purposely trying to kill civilians. I could indeed call everyone who voted for Hamas evil aswell as they are, but the reality is most of the people there fear from Hamas. It's not the united states as I said in a different post where you vote for who you want - in this case the people with the ski masks and the big rifles will probably scare the shit out of you so you'll just vote for them instead of worrying for your life. That, as we can see, didn't work out either. And that's exactly why I'm not blaming anyone in this conflict except Hamas and Iran, which directly funds them and supports them. Iran is pretty much the source of all evil if you really want to pinpoint a country. Iran is supporting, training, and funding Hezbollah so they'll attack Israel and grab it's attention when needed in the north. Iran also supports, trains and funds Hamas members so they'll grab Israel's attention from the south. Has anyone noticed how much time we've been talking about Israel and Gaza, and at the same time we forgot about Mahmud nutjob, the president of Iran who literally said "Israel should be wiped of the map" and then started building nuclear facilities? We're talking about an Islamic extremist who believes in death for god. If he has to, he'll blow up the entire earth in the name of God as he truly believes that there will be heaven waiting for him later. Iran's president also kicked out all of the UN inspectors who were examining the nuclear facilities. In 2006 he got everyone's attention on Israel vs Hezbollah, and now in 2009 he got everyone's attention on Israel vs Hamas, while his nuclear plans are almost ready. Be sure to know that when he's got those nukes - the first bomb will probably land on Israel, but be sure to expect the next ones in the USA. P.S: To all anti-war and "go make peace" activists, can you really imagine your life with this happening every day, a couple of times a day, sometimes even in the middle of the night?
totally agree, a terrorism is when ppl hijack something in order to get a ransom, a few millions of bucks, or some other reason. What they are saying in the news is not the true terrorism, its all hyped out mainly by CNN and the likes, its a war response in most cases, you can clearly see why are they doing it, and its not because of material things, its because they dont have dozens of planes, and other things that could fly in a minute, drop a bomb and go away unnoticed. Somalian pirates - thats the true terrorists