Terrorism is a word that they use to create fear.

Thank you for expanding on the question.

 

Now whats is your opinion on the issue?
Do you want to cover all the points, that I expanded, with your opinion?

 

You first

 

I've already expressed my opinion-

 

no, I think the media uses it as inclusive language....if they used the words "islamic fascists" or "islamic religious extremists", then I think that would put fear into people...terrorist is much the same as "insurgent" imo.

 

Terrorism make fear and governments take advantage of that fear
so I guess yes governments use that word to create fear , big recent example US government , this way help Bush & his group to pass many new laws without getting any resistance , no body say no when they are afraid

it's very old working trick politicians use since Roman Empire

 

Sure terrorism can be used to create fear.

Doesn't make it any less real. Just used like a 2 dollar whore.

 

Actually.... using RELIGION as a fear mongering tactic was a lot more effective, and lucrative in those days.

 

I asked it twice, I do not understand, how these new laws will help Bush and his gang in long term? Even in short term, whats the personal benefit of Bush and his gang?

 

They can't do that, GTech and d16man would be out of a job.

 

Someone seems to have fallen off the deep end.

Seeing how that *someone* seems to have fallen so deep and so far against their country, here's some good info on how to better spread related propaganda that he might find useful.

Might as well learn from the masters

 

The problem with the word "terrorism" is that is somewhat vague... While one can agree that a suicide bomber targeting a bus full of civilians is definitely a terrorist, sometimes political groups take it a little too far and brand groups of people as terrorists...

From WIKI: "Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments."

---

"Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.[45] Others consider terrorism itself to be a symptom of a highly controlled mass media, which does not otherwise give voice to alternative viewpoints, a view expressed by Paul Watson who has stated that controlled media is responsible for terrorism, because "you cannot get your information across any other way". Paul Watson's organization Sea Shepherd has itself been branded "eco-terrorist", although it claims to have not caused any casualties.

The mass media will often censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organisations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media."

 

I totally agree with you, great post

 

Does your definition include the bombing of civilian area?

 

I should think so Gworld, deliberate killing of innocents is wrong.

 

*Awaits for gworld's response to this comment, that will probably be: 'Israel bombed civilian areas - <LINK>, so they are terrorists too!'*

 

I don't think he's looking for the definition of "Terrorist", but whether or not the term is used to "create fear"... As far as I can tell, you misinterpreted the question, I'm not sure why you got mad...

As far as the original question...

Yes, I believe it's used by some (our administration, for example) to instill a sense of fear in the civilian population...

But I also believe it's used by our media to keep the viewers "tuned in"; preferably to their channel...

 

How did they do that? I mean on what level?

 

If you're honestly asking, because you don't know of any examples, I'd recommend a little more newspaper-reading

But if you're asking, because you disagree and would like me to provide an example... How about when Bush stated:

By providing no information on a possible target area, time-frame, or type of attack, all he did was create a sense of fear in the civilian population; and in doing so, civilians will be a little more apt to listing to him next time he speaks...

Let's say that you go to school, and there's a school security guy (semi-unpopular, but is there to protect you). The security guy tells you that someone might be trying to kill you... By doing this, he's creating an informational dependence; you need to listen to him if you want to know what's going on... And because he made this claim, you're going to be more willing to listen to him, and do what he says, next time he makes a request... If he says "stop using hallway #3", you'll use another hall, regardless of how unpopular he is, or if he's lied in the past...

That's just a short, watered-down way of showing how, I believe, the term "terrorist" is being used to manipulate the public...

 

Call me foolish or just a tree hugger but to me killing either ordered by a terrorist organization define by any government or troops from any country who are send to war can be define as terrorism.

With all the definition of terrorism, there's a commonality among them which is "creating fear unto another" thus any war of any scale will definitely create fear to any human being.

All I care about is killing is killing no matter what you called it. No one should ever kill another human being either by god / government or another human being. Someone who called themselves a cleric, representing god, a general or a president should never dictate or force you to kill another. They are just merely humans, why give them a level above you?

Respect yourself and maybe just maybe the world would finally be a better place for everyone!