Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Perhaps there are different levels of terrorism, I do not know. I do know that there are thoughts and ideas that I am afraid to post online out of fear for the authorities. I've been pulled over, thrown in handcuffs, leg irons and a cell while they searched my car for drugs (long hair with out of state plates). I didn't have any drugs. I've been beaten by the police, forced to stand in a busy police station with my pants and underwear around my ankles. My wife's been raped by a correctional officer.
How many such instances does it take before I'm considered a victim of terrorism?
(Incidentally, my dearest USA friends, do not drop the central vowel: It's Terr-O-rism' not 'Terr'ism'. You're either with us - OR against us.... grammatically speaking! )
I beg your pardon! Not all of us talk like we're from Texas
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Victorious said:
This is a very good definition of terrorism. The very core I think! Thank you.
That what what I was shooting for, so I'm glad I articulated it well enough that you got that too.
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@Hamsaka said:
Federica said:
I beg your pardon! Not all of us talk like we're from Texas
Too funny! I wasn't even aware that I leave out the 'o' until feddy said something about it ... and I'm not even in Texas.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Terrrrrrrism. Terrrrrrrrrrrrism. I can't even say it without the O.
Remember George Bush senior, and how he said 'harrassment'?
HARRASSment. Another Texasism.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@Hamsaka said:
Terrrrrrrism. Terrrrrrrrrrrrism. I can't even say it without the O.
Remember George Bush senior, and how he said 'harrassment'?
@Hamsaka said:
Federica said:
I beg your pardon! Not all of us talk like we're from Texas
In fact, I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@vinlyn said:In fact, I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way.
I had to think about how I pronounced it, and realized I pronounce 'terrorist' more like 'ter.er.ist' but barely discern the middle syllable. :smirk:
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2015
O/T (forgive the ever-pedantic nerd....)
In the UK, harassment SHOULD be pronounced Ha-rassment, but here is a widely prevlent habit of putting the emphasis on the middle syllable, (ha-RASS-ment) which I believe hails from the USA...
@vinlyn said: In fact, I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way.
Huh! You have obviously never fraternised with Americans!!
Funny thing about "nucular". After I kept hearing him say it that way, I found myself saying it that way and haven't been able to break myself of it.
But here's a question I have based on this thread. Since people here are coming up with their own definition of "terrorist" (and we all do that sort of thing), why does it matter if one person or another pronounces it slightly different. I mean to be perfectly honest, it seems like putting people down for something that really doesn't matter...to a Buddhist.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
From Randy Newman's "A Few Words in Defense of Our Country":
A President once said,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Now, we're supposed to be afraid
It's patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That's what terror means, doesn't it?
That's what it used to mean.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
late 18th century: from French terroriste. The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality, and the Democratic right for people to posses the ground they occupied.
>
just for info...
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@vinlyn said:
But here's a question I have based on this thread. Since people here are coming up with their own definition of "terrorist" (and we all do that sort of thing), why does it matter if one person or another pronounces it slightly different. I mean to be perfectly honest, it seems like putting people down for something that really doesn't matter...to a Buddhist.
Cuz it's funny how the Brits don't know proper English when it's spoken by Amurricans, that's why
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@federica said:
....Would that be 'Buh-ddhist', or 'Boodhist'...?
A Buh-ddhist sounds like something to do with botany, the person who has their post-doc studying plant genitals or something.
I never quite understood why British words add so many extra "u" letters in them, lol. Favourite? Colour? Why? No matter the country, English makes the least sense of any language I've ever learned. I can get by with German, Spanish and Finnish, and they all make a whole lot more sense than English.
We blur our syllables quite a bit where I live, but "terrorist" was never one of them. "Remember" becomes " 'member?" and so on. We are lazy speakers. But I think that is because our brains are frozen half the year.
The Queens English made the world civilised and all these colonials want to do is chop it about. It really isn't cricket.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Apparently the accent best known in the American south 'evolved' from primarily Scottish and Irish brogue, with a splash or two of French thrown in. It's the easiest accent to emulate. I can almost 'hear' the traditional British accent deep down inside the New England accent in the American east coast, especially that additional 'r' sound tagged on a word ending with a vowel and before another word that begins with a vowel.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@karasti said:
I never quite understood why British words add so many extra "u" letters in them, lol. Favourite? Colour? Why? No matter the country, English makes the least sense of any language I've ever learned. I can get by with German, Spanish and Finnish, and they all make a whole lot more sense than English.
We blur our syllables quite a bit where I live, but "terrorist" was never one of them. "Remember" becomes " 'member?" and so on. We are lazy speakers. But I think that is because our brains are frozen half the year.
Don't forget the Canadians with their 'cheques'. They do extra 'u's in words too but unless you listen to Canadians toward the east, they all sound like Americans accent wise.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Basically, in a nutshell, English - isn't English. It's a composite of many other languages, including latin (Testament, Capital) French, Nordic, Germanic... all because this 'sceptr'd Isle' has been so vulnerable to invasion and inhabitation over the millennia. Every 'country' who ever came and settled, left their lingual mark.
The extra 'u' is courtesy of the French. 'Vous' became 'thou' and in fact there are hundreds of French words and terms we still use in English, as a matter of course, havinga dopted them into everyday speech.
I recommend people grab a copy of Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" It's funny and informative, although I can't stand the guy himself.
@yagr said:
How many such instances does it take before I'm considered a victim of terrorism?
Indeed.
State sponsored terrorism, such as Nazism, Isism and Flagism is often about suppression of dissent.
We too terrorise animals by brutal farming methods, terrorise resource rich countries, terrorise minorities, outsiders etc. Not all of us directly perhaps but I would suggest we need more anti-terrorism, kindism might be a suitable term, humanism . . . m m m . . .
@Hamsaka said:
Don't forget the Canadians with their 'cheques'. They do extra 'u's in words too but unless you listen to Canadians toward the east, they all sound like Americans accent wise.
I suppose the longer this thread goes on, the broader the definition of terrorism will become to the point where kids throwing snowballs at each other will be committing acts of terrorism.
I see a parallel here with the news article in the last day or two about the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who has described federal courts decision to strike down the gay marriage bans as "tyranny".
Of course, free speech allows every individual to be able to define words as they wish, and most of us do here, but in cases of this sort, there ought to be some national/international consensus on what constitutes terrorism. Otherwise you simply have anarchy.
That's interesting, SpinyNorman. For me -- and I'm not insisting anyone else agree -- a key point in the article is "Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors". I say that because that provides a legal structure to deal with terrorism -- at the local, national, and international levels.
@SpinyNorman said:
"Non-state" could be problematic. For example ISIL presumably consider themselves a state, but would other states ( nations? ) recognise them as such?
( is it ISIL, ISIS or just IS? I'm never sure! )
How about Bastards?
I am pretty sure Bastards covers it pretty well. .
@vinlyn said:
I suppose the longer this thread goes on, the broader the definition of terrorism will become to the point where kids throwing snowballs at each other will be committing acts of terrorism.
I see a parallel here with the news article in the last day or two about the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who has described federal courts decision to strike down the gay marriage bans as "tyranny".
Of course, free speech allows every individual to be able to define words as they wish, and most of us do here, but in cases of this sort, there ought to be some national/international consensus on what constitutes terrorism. Otherwise you simply have anarchy.
@Victorious said:
In the beginning of this krISIS it was less difficult to be neutral. But as things evolve toward a world encompassing war. It gets harder.
Still I would really really like to understand what drives an ISIS soldier.
/Victor
Ideology and a species of patriotism. ISIS is, by definition about creating an Islamic state. That alone makes labels like "Terrorist" difficult to afix. They are ruthless in their pursuit of this goal, but they're not running around killing simply for the sake of killing. Theres a goal inherant in the name chosen.
There won't be a global war over this. The map will be redrawn.
@SpinyNorman said:
"Non-state" could be problematic. For example ISIL presumably consider themselves a state, but would other states ( nations? ) recognise them as such?
Actually, that's part of the point.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@vinlyn said:
I suppose the longer this thread goes on, the broader the definition of terrorism will become to the point where kids throwing snowballs at each other will be committing acts of terrorism.
They ARE, Vinlyn. That's the mind-stretcher. No, throwing snowballs isn't 'equivalent' to ISIL's kind of terrorism. As above, so below. Terrorism can be cute when little kids do it, see what I mean?
If I may be so bold with you (and I feel great respect for you, especially because you've been a leader for the sake of our children), I'd say take 'your' definition of terrorism and not water it down but . . . . stretch it a bit. I think. Make it less 'specific'. Little kids playing 'war' with snow balls are playing 'war' like the big kids waving swords and holy books.
I see a parallel here with the news article in the last day or two about the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who has described federal courts decision to strike down the gay marriage bans as "tyranny".
Yep, I see a parallel there too.
Of course, free speech allows every individual to be able to define words as they wish, and most of us do here, but in cases of this sort, there ought to be some national/international consensus on what constitutes terrorism. Otherwise you simply have anarchy.
Words are by themselves DEFINITIONS, they 'work ON us' as much as we assign 'work' to them. Does that make sense? They influence us as much as we decide what they mean.
I don't know if we CAN create a universal 'definition' or if we even need to, because no matter what we little humans call it, it is what it is no matter what we say/think/do with it. It's at THAT level that I'm thinking of 'terrorism', maybe down there at the deeper levels of conditioned reality. Dang I hope I'm making sense!
Interesting, Hamsaka. But here's the problem I see.
Let's take George Bush. There are those who would like to see him tried at the World Court. And under some of the definitions of terrorism in this thread, he would be considered a terrorist. Well, I guess if you're going to call him a terrorist, you'd have to call the vast majority of American presidents terrorists. And we can't leave out their vice presidents. Or the members of their cabinets. Or every member of Congress who voted in favor for (for example) the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution (which was nearly unanimous). And what about the Americans who voted for any particular president. Or any American who voted for a congressman who voted for such resolutions.
And then we can start on the leaders of many, if not most, other countries. And go right on down the line, just as I did above.
And it would never end.
And you know what it really is? It's revenge (not a very Buddhist notion) against people who see the world differently than "you" (not you, Hamsaka, but the royal "you").
And yet, in other threads we talk about American justice being too punitive, too much based on lock 'em up and throw away the key, or execute them, or take away their ability to earn a living in their given profession, etc.
And after all the recriminations are done, the world won't work any better than it does right now.
4
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Politically speaking, it's the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, average citizens can't know what's really going on - and as far as the average citizen in any given country knows, the politicians and the military are just defending their country. I mean, we can only guess what's going on, but I think it's easy enough to 'know' that it's a real can of worms that is always at cross purposes and the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing, so we peeps on the forums shouldn't judge each other for whatever may come out of our mouths and keyboards because there's too much we just don't know - at least some of us know we don't know.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
And you know what it really is? It's revenge (not a very Buddhist notion) against people who see the world differently than "you" (not you, Hamsaka, but the royal "you").
And yet, in other threads we talk about American justice being too punitive, too much based on lock 'em up and throw away the key, or execute them, or take away their ability to earn a living in their given profession, etc.
And after all the recriminations are done, the world won't work any better than it does right now.
Exactly. I 'arrive' at the same conclusion. We are all terrorists, directly and indirectly. But what 'good' does it do on the 'as above' level where all of us want peace and security? Not much, in an obvious way. Maybe this is where equanimity in the face of this effed up world comes in? Not surrender or apathy, but equanimity.
There's just such a black hole created BY creating illusory separations between 'you, terrorist, me freedom fighter' mentality. Just the effort to make that distinction BECOMES the problem, at least makes it more implacable.
That said, what ISIL is doing over there to people just blares out and makes my point about terrorism look . . . ridiculous and permissive!
@Vinlyn :
For me -- and I'm not insisting anyone else agree -- a key point in the article is "Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors". I say that because that provides a legal structure to deal with terrorism -- at the local, national, and international levels.
For legal purposes and for states, this element in the definition is convenient.
It does however make the resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe a terrorist organization.
The Dutch revolt against Spanish rule, like - I suppose - the American revolt against British rule, would be terrorist acts.
The law is on the side of the ruler (no matter how ruthless) and opposition is illegal?
For me it’s much clearer to see terrorism as the strategy of intimidating the civilian population with indiscriminate violence.
It does put some heads of state where they belong; in a list of large-scale murderers, criminals, terrorists.
It feels a lot better - for me – to name Stalin, Mao and Hitler terrorists than putting that label on the courageous people who resisted them.
@zenff said:
The law is on the side of the ruler (no matter how ruthless) and opposition is illegal?
I agree, legalistic definitions of terrorism are fraught with problems. As I observed previously Nelson Mandela was regarded as a terrorist by the South African state.
@vinlyn said:
Okay, Zenff, I can see that. I guess the key phrase being "indiscriminate violence".
But "indiscriminate" is also tricky. Despite the development of laser guided bombs and GPS munitions, modern warfare still quickly becomes indiscriminate. It's still the case that if you want to take back a town held by insurgents, you basically need to bomb or shell the hell out of it before sending in ground troops.
That said, what ISIL is doing over there to people just blares out and makes my point about terrorism look . . . ridiculous and permissive!
Vinlyn said:
I'm just curious what you mean by that.
I wasn't very clear was I . . . when I said that 'terrorism' is embedded in activities of daily living from snow ball fights to ISIL, it sounds like I'm making 'terrorism' into something so overly relative the meaning we're trying to get to is lost. That's what I meant by ridiculous and permissive. Yeah, we're ALL terrorists
But there's a huge difference between a snow ball fight or being irritable with your husband and what ISIL is doing to it's 'captives'. It feels wrong to make that overly relative, it feels wrong to just shrug and assume the lotus position because 'terrorism' is embedded in human life.
I hope ISIL does its thing and gets its territory and 'stabilizes' so we can build a Constantinople-style wall around the whole blasted place. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with (howz that for having terrorist thoughts).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Ad today's message from HH the DL's feed, on FB, is:
"Interdependence is a fundamental law of nature. Even tiny insects survive by cooperating with each other. Our own survival is so dependent on the help of others that a need for love lies at the very core of our existence. This is why we need to cultivate a genuine sense of responsibility and a sincere concern for the welfare of others."
Perhaps a terrorist is simply one who tries and succeeds in making another person feel marked fear. Or perhaps they merely have to try.
I do not know. Honestly, there's no false modesty there....I really don't know. Maybe it's unknowable.
But trying to live my life in a way that doesn't breed fear in anyone is a full time job... a moments forgetfulness and I can act, speak, and think some pretty, fear inducing, words and behaviors for the rest of the day. Of course distractions are everywhere. Not only do I let them do their job - I seek out distractions....like this forum. This topic though, gets me nervous. I'm trying to forget labels and here I am, following along and debating (in my head) the finer points of this particular label and who I get to pre-judge that way.
Quick! Somebody! I need a cushion!
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Typical. Lobster iz everywhere, and just when you could do with him... no @lobster!
Terrorism is like the extreme big brother to bullying. 50 years ago, the meanings were quite different. Now when you can reach across the internet and the news is 24 hours a day, both terrorism and bullying have changed. I think that's part of why it's so hard to define now.
We are taught in school that we have to be up on current events. That it's really important to know what is going on all over the world. But is it? I'm sure a lot of this stuff was happening years ago, but we didn't hear about it to this extent because we had 4 tv channels that shut off at 11pm and no internet. Technology has changed the game, it makes hearing about terrorism a requirement, it makes it easier for them to recruit members, it makes it easier to terrorize by hacking accounts and threatening military members where none of those things were possible.
Is my knowing about ISIS making the world better, or safer? Quite the opposite, it makes us feel unsafe and scared and then that translates into being over-protective parents and over-sensitive to snow ball fights.
Sometimes, I just want to ditch the tv and the internet and just not hear about this crap all day long. I think my life would be better for it. My knowing about it changes nothing except my own mindset, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Sometimes, I'm not so sure the "ignorance is bliss" isn't so bad. I'd rather be ignorant of the sh*t that happens in the world when I can't do anything about it anyhow. Knowing about it changes my life in ways I don't like.
Comments
Perhaps there are different levels of terrorism, I do not know. I do know that there are thoughts and ideas that I am afraid to post online out of fear for the authorities. I've been pulled over, thrown in handcuffs, leg irons and a cell while they searched my car for drugs (long hair with out of state plates). I didn't have any drugs. I've been beaten by the police, forced to stand in a busy police station with my pants and underwear around my ankles. My wife's been raped by a correctional officer.
How many such instances does it take before I'm considered a victim of terrorism?
@Gui Maybe, but I am not so sure. IS is one of the most well funded military organisations in the world.
@yagr Huge Humongous Hug.
EDIT. To stay on the right side of sexism I just want to point out that it is a very manly hug but still a very warm and long one!
.
/Victor
@Federica said:
I beg your pardon! Not all of us talk like we're from Texas
That what what I was shooting for, so I'm glad I articulated it well enough that you got that too.
Too funny! I wasn't even aware that I leave out the 'o' until feddy said something about it ... and I'm not even in Texas.
Terrrrrrrism. Terrrrrrrrrrrrism. I can't even say it without the O.
Remember George Bush senior, and how he said 'harrassment'?
HARRASSment.
Another Texasism.
Umm...what's wrong with that?
Her ass meant? Oh the shame of it all!
In fact, I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way.
I had to think about how I pronounced it, and realized I pronounce 'terrorist' more like 'ter.er.ist' but barely discern the middle syllable. :smirk:
O/T (forgive the ever-pedantic nerd....)
In the UK, harassment SHOULD be pronounced Ha-rassment, but here is a widely prevlent habit of putting the emphasis on the middle syllable, (ha-RASS-ment) which I believe hails from the USA...
Huh! You have obviously never fraternised with Americans!!
And George Bush (Jnr)...? "Nucular...."
Funny thing about "nucular". After I kept hearing him say it that way, I found myself saying it that way and haven't been able to break myself of it.
But here's a question I have based on this thread. Since people here are coming up with their own definition of "terrorist" (and we all do that sort of thing), why does it matter if one person or another pronounces it slightly different. I mean to be perfectly honest, it seems like putting people down for something that really doesn't matter...to a Buddhist.
....Would that be 'Buh-ddhist', or 'Boodhist'...?
From Randy Newman's "A Few Words in Defense of Our Country":
A President once said,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Now, we're supposed to be afraid
It's patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That's what terror means, doesn't it?
That's what it used to mean.
>
just for info...
Cuz it's funny how the Brits don't know proper English when it's spoken by Amurricans, that's why
A Buh-ddhist sounds like something to do with botany, the person who has their post-doc studying plant genitals or something.
I never quite understood why British words add so many extra "u" letters in them, lol. Favourite? Colour? Why? No matter the country, English makes the least sense of any language I've ever learned. I can get by with German, Spanish and Finnish, and they all make a whole lot more sense than English.
We blur our syllables quite a bit where I live, but "terrorist" was never one of them. "Remember" becomes " 'member?" and so on. We are lazy speakers. But I think that is because our brains are frozen half the year.
The Queens English made the world civilised and all these colonials want to do is chop it about. It really isn't cricket.
Apparently the accent best known in the American south 'evolved' from primarily Scottish and Irish brogue, with a splash or two of French thrown in. It's the easiest accent to emulate. I can almost 'hear' the traditional British accent deep down inside the New England accent in the American east coast, especially that additional 'r' sound tagged on a word ending with a vowel and before another word that begins with a vowel.
Don't forget the Canadians with their 'cheques'. They do extra 'u's in words too but unless you listen to Canadians toward the east, they all sound like Americans accent wise.
Basically, in a nutshell, English - isn't English. It's a composite of many other languages, including latin (Testament, Capital) French, Nordic, Germanic... all because this 'sceptr'd Isle' has been so vulnerable to invasion and inhabitation over the millennia. Every 'country' who ever came and settled, left their lingual mark.
The extra 'u' is courtesy of the French. 'Vous' became 'thou' and in fact there are hundreds of French words and terms we still use in English, as a matter of course, havinga dopted them into everyday speech.
I recommend people grab a copy of Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" It's funny and informative, although I can't stand the guy himself.
Indeed.
State sponsored terrorism, such as Nazism, Isism and Flagism is often about suppression of dissent.
We too terrorise animals by brutal farming methods, terrorise resource rich countries, terrorise minorities, outsiders etc. Not all of us directly perhaps but I would suggest we need more anti-terrorism, kindism might be a suitable term, humanism . . . m m m . . .
Sorry, I couldn't resist posting this.....
I suppose the longer this thread goes on, the broader the definition of terrorism will become to the point where kids throwing snowballs at each other will be committing acts of terrorism.
I see a parallel here with the news article in the last day or two about the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who has described federal courts decision to strike down the gay marriage bans as "tyranny".
Of course, free speech allows every individual to be able to define words as they wish, and most of us do here, but in cases of this sort, there ought to be some national/international consensus on what constitutes terrorism. Otherwise you simply have anarchy.
I checked Wiki, but that raises more questions than answers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
That's interesting, SpinyNorman. For me -- and I'm not insisting anyone else agree -- a key point in the article is "Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors". I say that because that provides a legal structure to deal with terrorism -- at the local, national, and international levels.
"Non-state" could be problematic. For example ISIL presumably consider themselves a state, but would other states ( nations? ) recognise them as such?
( is it ISIL, ISIS or just IS? I'm never sure! )
How about Bastards?
I am pretty sure Bastards covers it pretty well.
.
Am I gonna be in trouble with @federica now?
No, you're not.
It's understandable that in discussions such as this one, sentiments run high... and you're not flaming/insulting anyone here...
That would be where I draw the line at foul language
In the beginning of this krISIS it was less difficult to be neutral. But as things evolve toward a world encompassing war. It gets harder.
Still I would really really like to understand what drives an ISIS soldier.
/Victor
Or tyranny....
Ideology and a species of patriotism. ISIS is, by definition about creating an Islamic state. That alone makes labels like "Terrorist" difficult to afix. They are ruthless in their pursuit of this goal, but they're not running around killing simply for the sake of killing. Theres a goal inherant in the name chosen.
There won't be a global war over this. The map will be redrawn.
Actually, that's part of the point.
They ARE, Vinlyn. That's the mind-stretcher. No, throwing snowballs isn't 'equivalent' to ISIL's kind of terrorism. As above, so below. Terrorism can be cute when little kids do it, see what I mean?
If I may be so bold with you (and I feel great respect for you, especially because you've been a leader for the sake of our children), I'd say take 'your' definition of terrorism and not water it down but . . . . stretch it a bit. I think. Make it less 'specific'. Little kids playing 'war' with snow balls are playing 'war' like the big kids waving swords and holy books.
Yep, I see a parallel there too.
Words are by themselves DEFINITIONS, they 'work ON us' as much as we assign 'work' to them. Does that make sense? They influence us as much as we decide what they mean.
I don't know if we CAN create a universal 'definition' or if we even need to, because no matter what we little humans call it, it is what it is no matter what we say/think/do with it. It's at THAT level that I'm thinking of 'terrorism', maybe down there at the deeper levels of conditioned reality. Dang I hope I'm making sense!
Interesting, Hamsaka. But here's the problem I see.
Let's take George Bush. There are those who would like to see him tried at the World Court. And under some of the definitions of terrorism in this thread, he would be considered a terrorist. Well, I guess if you're going to call him a terrorist, you'd have to call the vast majority of American presidents terrorists. And we can't leave out their vice presidents. Or the members of their cabinets. Or every member of Congress who voted in favor for (for example) the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution (which was nearly unanimous). And what about the Americans who voted for any particular president. Or any American who voted for a congressman who voted for such resolutions.
And then we can start on the leaders of many, if not most, other countries. And go right on down the line, just as I did above.
And it would never end.
And you know what it really is? It's revenge (not a very Buddhist notion) against people who see the world differently than "you" (not you, Hamsaka, but the royal "you").
And yet, in other threads we talk about American justice being too punitive, too much based on lock 'em up and throw away the key, or execute them, or take away their ability to earn a living in their given profession, etc.
And after all the recriminations are done, the world won't work any better than it does right now.
Politically speaking, it's the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, average citizens can't know what's really going on - and as far as the average citizen in any given country knows, the politicians and the military are just defending their country. I mean, we can only guess what's going on, but I think it's easy enough to 'know' that it's a real can of worms that is always at cross purposes and the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing, so we peeps on the forums shouldn't judge each other for whatever may come out of our mouths and keyboards because there's too much we just don't know - at least some of us know we don't know.
@Vinlyn said:
Exactly. I 'arrive' at the same conclusion. We are all terrorists, directly and indirectly. But what 'good' does it do on the 'as above' level where all of us want peace and security? Not much, in an obvious way. Maybe this is where equanimity in the face of this effed up world comes in? Not surrender or apathy, but equanimity.
There's just such a black hole created BY creating illusory separations between 'you, terrorist, me freedom fighter' mentality. Just the effort to make that distinction BECOMES the problem, at least makes it more implacable.
That said, what ISIL is doing over there to people just blares out and makes my point about terrorism look . . . ridiculous and permissive!
I'm just curious what you mean by that.
For legal purposes and for states, this element in the definition is convenient.
It does however make the resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe a terrorist organization.
The Dutch revolt against Spanish rule, like - I suppose - the American revolt against British rule, would be terrorist acts.
The law is on the side of the ruler (no matter how ruthless) and opposition is illegal?
For me it’s much clearer to see terrorism as the strategy of intimidating the civilian population with indiscriminate violence.
It does put some heads of state where they belong; in a list of large-scale murderers, criminals, terrorists.
It feels a lot better - for me – to name Stalin, Mao and Hitler terrorists than putting that label on the courageous people who resisted them.
Okay, @Zenff, I can see that. I guess the key phrase being "indiscriminate violence".
On the other hand, the world structure attempts to deal with heads of state in another way (of course, not always successfully).
I agree, legalistic definitions of terrorism are fraught with problems. As I observed previously Nelson Mandela was regarded as a terrorist by the South African state.
But "indiscriminate" is also tricky. Despite the development of laser guided bombs and GPS munitions, modern warfare still quickly becomes indiscriminate. It's still the case that if you want to take back a town held by insurgents, you basically need to bomb or shell the hell out of it before sending in ground troops.
I iz
Not-IS
t shirt for Buddhist ISIS insurgents/enemy/bastards/kids gone AWOL etc?
. . . and now back to the terror . . .
I wasn't very clear was I . . . when I said that 'terrorism' is embedded in activities of daily living from snow ball fights to ISIL, it sounds like I'm making 'terrorism' into something so overly relative the meaning we're trying to get to is lost. That's what I meant by ridiculous and permissive. Yeah, we're ALL terrorists
But there's a huge difference between a snow ball fight or being irritable with your husband and what ISIL is doing to it's 'captives'. It feels wrong to make that overly relative, it feels wrong to just shrug and assume the lotus position because 'terrorism' is embedded in human life.
I hope ISIL does its thing and gets its territory and 'stabilizes' so we can build a Constantinople-style wall around the whole blasted place. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with (howz that for having terrorist thoughts).
Ad today's message from HH the DL's feed, on FB, is:
Pass it on.
To IS, preferably.....
Perhaps a terrorist is simply one who tries and succeeds in making another person feel marked fear. Or perhaps they merely have to try.
I do not know. Honestly, there's no false modesty there....I really don't know. Maybe it's unknowable.
But trying to live my life in a way that doesn't breed fear in anyone is a full time job... a moments forgetfulness and I can act, speak, and think some pretty, fear inducing, words and behaviors for the rest of the day. Of course distractions are everywhere. Not only do I let them do their job - I seek out distractions....like this forum. This topic though, gets me nervous. I'm trying to forget labels and here I am, following along and debating (in my head) the finer points of this particular label and who I get to pre-judge that way.
Quick! Somebody! I need a cushion!
Typical. Lobster iz everywhere, and just when you could do with him... no @lobster!
Terrorism is like the extreme big brother to bullying. 50 years ago, the meanings were quite different. Now when you can reach across the internet and the news is 24 hours a day, both terrorism and bullying have changed. I think that's part of why it's so hard to define now.
We are taught in school that we have to be up on current events. That it's really important to know what is going on all over the world. But is it? I'm sure a lot of this stuff was happening years ago, but we didn't hear about it to this extent because we had 4 tv channels that shut off at 11pm and no internet. Technology has changed the game, it makes hearing about terrorism a requirement, it makes it easier for them to recruit members, it makes it easier to terrorize by hacking accounts and threatening military members where none of those things were possible.
Is my knowing about ISIS making the world better, or safer? Quite the opposite, it makes us feel unsafe and scared and then that translates into being over-protective parents and over-sensitive to snow ball fights.
Sometimes, I just want to ditch the tv and the internet and just not hear about this crap all day long. I think my life would be better for it. My knowing about it changes nothing except my own mindset, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Sometimes, I'm not so sure the "ignorance is bliss" isn't so bad. I'd rather be ignorant of the sh*t that happens in the world when I can't do anything about it anyhow. Knowing about it changes my life in ways I don't like.
Let's see now. Why are we expending so much thought and energy on defining what a terrorist is?
Guess it's just a mental exercise. Or perhaps a way to get us to argue with one another. Or is it part of Lumosity?