Ya know, it really bothers me when people use the word 'terrorism'. I'm not picking on you at all -- i've actually been thinking about this for quite some time. Just think of this little tirade as an intellectual foray.
The word "terrorism" seems like so much propaganda to me. The only thing is, I think i'm the only person the entire world that feels this way. So, maybe i'll just take
this definition and analyse it a little bit.
Quote:
|
<b>Terrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practioners. Even the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is still alive and well. Listed below are several definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of the Terrorism Research Center, we have adopted the definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.</b>
|
The fact that no one can agree on a definition tells me that it doesn't really mean anything. When someone feels strongly about something, but can't define it, doesn't that tell you something? It is really best used when someone is trying to discredit someone. Why can't they just be called 'the enemy"?
Now, the part about, "invoking an emotional response" seems to be the most valid part of the definition to me. But ALL war evokes an emotional response in it's participants. Isn't that what war is? I'm not saying war is good -- war is terrible. But maybe the word 'war' has been desensitized enough that we feel the need to come up with a new word that sounds more evil.
Quote:
<b>Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
--Brian Jenkins </b>
|
By this definintion, anyone who uses force on another government is a terrorist. So, America is a terrorist nation for fighting Russia? After all, we were using force to bring about political change. It's all a matter of perspective.
Quote:
<b>Terrorism consitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
--Walter Laqueur</b>
|
Anyone who experiences force being used against them feels that that force is illegitimate, and also feels that they are innocent.
What exactly is this definition supposed to mean? People can't attack governments without being evil? Were the citizens of Argentina 'evil terrorists' for overthrowing their government? Are they immoral? Probably not. Why? Because they're not against the U.S. See how subject this is?
Quote:
<b>Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
--James M. Poland</b>
|
This seems like the most fair definition to me, although I could add that anything that's premeditated is also deliberate. This does seem like a pretty good definition, although if I ran around calling everyone who fit this definition a terrorist, I would probably be laughed at.
Anyway, i'll skip the other definintions 'cause I want to spend time with my fiancee. So, um, this isn't a flame or anything -- it's just something that i've really been thinking about. Intelligent contradictions welcome!