A very interesting question I heard asked the other day. Of course it was originally intended to be about the current crisis in the Middle East, but you can answer it as a nonspecific, philosophical question if you want.
2006-07-30 11:45:09 · 11 answers · asked by eddster08 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It shows how meaningless this word"terrorism" has become."Terrorism" is used by our state and the press because believing all evil and murder comes from outside the state is a kind of brainwashing that makes people not think. At any time there are terrorists that others call resistance fighters,freedom fighters....Then there are states that murder civilians because they say they are fighting for a higher purpose,national security,etc.There is no name for this,some call it state terrorism.Clearly,there is no difference between state terrorism and terrorism.
2006-07-30 12:21:21 · answer #1 · answered by tortola89 2 · 12⤊ 4⤋
Well I think the main point here is cause and effect. The question is imposing the view that America is being terrorist as well because we were dropping bombs in the country. As I said I think the main difference here is cause and effect, after 9/11 crap hit the fan. Yes innocent people over in the middle east have died because of the war, but also innocent people died in the 9/11 attack. If we simply turn the other cheek, and did and do nothing about that terroristic attack, it only says that they got away with it. I guess what I'm trying to say is hard to make words for, does anybody else feel this way?
2006-07-30 11:53:26 · answer #2 · answered by Josh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sort of. For the most part a terrorist organization is a group of people separate from an official government that employs guerilla tactics for some outrageous cause. They aren't organized enough, and don't have the man-power to be a military. I think, though, that if a terrorist organization became big enough to actually have its own planes to drop bombs, it would be considered a military faction of the terrorist institution. For the most part, countries that bomb other countries for the sake of killing are considered terrorists. Hilter was a terrorist. Milosavic was a terrorist, and so was Saddam Hussein.
2006-07-30 11:51:47 · answer #3 · answered by trueblue88 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, a child being killed in war isn't necessarily terrorism. It could be, if the soldiers seek out and intentionally kill children. If it's an accident and they just kinda "got in the way". Then it's called collateral damage.
2006-07-30 11:50:26 · answer #4 · answered by asafam23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With respect to Israel, when it sends a missile that kills Arab children, the Israelis call it "self defense". If Hezbollah sends a missile that kills Israeli children, the Israelis and George Bush (one and the same entity) call it "terrorism".
Same act, different actors. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
From this I can only conclude that terrorism equals self defense, and that self defense equals terrorism. it makes not much difference in either case, because dead is dead no matter what you call it.
2006-07-30 12:12:16 · answer #5 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its terrorism no matter where the bombs come from! if they kill civilians especially women n kids who didnt have anything to do with the crisis, its TERRORISM!!!!!!
2006-07-30 11:50:33 · answer #6 · answered by saba 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, terrorism can come in many forms. Israel is terrorizing the Lebanese.
2006-07-30 12:12:51 · answer #7 · answered by magginine 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes ..& i swear its true.you dont need to show me laws because i can tell you an experience.here in the beautiful village Qana ..57 were killed.37 are children.
2006-07-30 12:10:55 · answer #8 · answered by zazou 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the intent is what is important. If you deliberately target non-combatants, then that is terrorism.
2006-07-30 11:58:40 · answer #9 · answered by professional student 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much but its a little more complicated than that.
2006-07-30 11:51:04 · answer #10 · answered by Daniel H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋