Ok, go ahead and define terrorism for me. Please tell me how it is different from garden variety murders. I'll even give you a heads up, check out the government websites. FBI, State Dept., Homeland Security, etc. They all have different definitions of terrorism. In fact, the last time I checked, the government had at least 7 different definitions of 'terrorism.' That's why I find it to be complete and utter bullshit. Further, you are way more likely to be killed by a friend/significant other than a terrorist. But go ahead, tell me why terrorism is somehow worse than murder. And define it for me, because I don't know what you're actually talking about. And in a strange twist, neither do you, but you'll figure that out when you try to define it and differentiate it from murder. Terrorism is a made up term. All it does is somehow make the motive (which consequently is not necessary for a criminal conviction) of paramount importance. Why? Do I care that I was only shot by someone due to financial reasons? Was that a 'better death?' And really? You've been to shitty places where people die in the streets? So, for instance, you've visited Camden, NJ or Detroit MI? You know, people die in those places every day. While I don't doubt that third world countries are shitty, isn't the point of America to be a better place?
The way I see it, terrorism is a form of extortion, where the killing of people is the means to try to intimidate people into taking or refraining from some course of action. For example, if some guy kills his girlfriend because she left him, that's murder. I would also classify something as terrorism if the act is done for no other reason than to instill fear into a group of people, though that definition is more problematic. I also want to say it's like the old definition of porn: hard to describe in concrete terms, but I know it when I see it. The real reason I think lots of people are up in arms over Islamic terrorism is because it's a problem whose solution would be to punish people who are not like them. Like you said, everyone is far more likely to be murdered by someone known to them, but addressing that means you might have to make some changes/sacrifices in your own life.
You have hit the nail right on the head. The only problem is, from a legal standpoint, criminal laws are narrowly construed. This is getting (finally) to a very important discussion that the US desperately needs to have: How do you conduct a war (or wars) on a concept that even you (the US) can't adequately define? Is it any wonder that we're making a mess of things in trying to 'win' this particular war?
And this is precisely my problem with hate crimes too. It baffles me that if someone breaks in to my home, robs me, shoots me, kills me, but didn't do it for racially motivated reasons that's somehow a 'better' act? I am telling you as an attorney (and a damn good one, I might add) that such distinctions are really shitty ones to make. Whether my murderer didn't hate me because of my race, I'm still really fucking dead. And intentionally so - the motive should not matter. And I keep coming back to it, the legal concept of 'terror' is poorly defined. It will never be well defined because it's an emotion. Do people NOT feel terror if they're raped? Or have a gun pointed at them? Or beaten with a bat? And now we're getting down to brass tacks - and my original point. The 'war on terror' and 'terrorism' in general are bullshit. What's the difference between an 'act of war' and an 'act of terror?' Apparently, it is based on who commits it. Which is a very problematic distinction. If we get right down to it, this parsing up of people into sub groups has been a horrible idea. The vast majority of the 9/11 guys were Saudis. The 9/11 report blacks out any references to Saudi Arabia. So instead of going to Saudi, which has close ties to our government, we go after these groups piecemeal, and create even bigger problems in Iraq and Syria as well as Afghanistan. But what it also does is scare the hell out of people and I guess gets them to believe that we need to constantly be at war and spending ourselves into oblivion for defense. We spend more on defense than every other category of discretionary spending combined. That's nuts. And even the fiscal conservatives don't advocate cutting spending on defense, they all seem to want to increase it (notably Rand Paul originally wanted to cut it, then did a 180, stood in front of an Aircraft Carrier and said we need to spend more). That's what this country needs to be talking about. Forget the nonsense about building walls and the Affordable Care Act. Let's have an honest discussion about what type of country, and world leader, we want to be. I highly doubt most Americans want to be the country that's constantly at war. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe most Americans do want that. I have no real idea, because the question is so rarely asked - and when it is - the person asking is vilified for being unpatriotic.
I'm not even going to bother defining terrorism. Other posters already did, but more importantly I just don't see the point in arguing this if you can't see the difference between a guy who kills his wife in a fit of jealously and the coordinated attacks on 9/11. You bring up the fact that Americans kill more Americans than terrorists right now as if that somehow makes it a good idea to open our doors to the most violent regions in the world. I find it interesting that you think I don't know what I'm talking about when you equate terrorism to any other form of violence and at the same time seem to believe Camden and Detroit are equal to the most terrible places in the world because crime happens there. I don't know man, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm not sure this concept that if anything bad happens in one place it makes it exactly the same as any other place where anything bad happens is going to resonate with very many Americans, despite how hard the far left keeps trying to push it.
Actually, no they didn't. For instance: Sounds good, right? Except, it's not differentiated from acts of war, which was my whole point. Remember 'Shock and Awe?' How about Pearl Harbor? How about Hiroshima? Dresden? The shelling of Beirut? Isn't one of the points of acts of war to intimidate, and wait for it, make people afraid (aka terrified, if you will) to fight back, or to get them to change their behavior with regards to your country? Why, yes it is! And you're missing the point. My point was that acts of war and acts of terrorism are the same thing. Not terrorism and domestic abuse. My point was again, when people use the word 'terror' to define terrorism, they are not actually defining the word. The definition of terrorism 'to instill fear (synonym) in others' doesn't define it. Adding 'that are not direct victims of the crime' again doesn't differentiate terrorism from acts of war - see above. Why does it matter? Because an Act of War leads to certain, usually Constitutionally defined, responses. Acts of Terrorism do not. And this different treatment is extremely problematic in many ways. And again, you're missing the point. You point to certain 'problematic cultural areas' - now the difference in peoples' minds is that this a religious difference. My point is there are dangers to Americans right here in America that are far more likely to harm an American than an immigrant. If your point is 'we should not allow immigrants from places where there are religious zealots' then fine, but my point is the amount of fear that Americans have about immigrants is disproportionate from the risk presented - and that there is far more risk to all of us by people living in our neighborhoods already. Many whom look like us. That was the point of the 'Camden and Detroit' analogy. Ultimately, if safety is the goal, then let's work on the more probable harms first, then worry about the far more attenuated. I am way more likely to be killed by someone that is an American citizen than some immigrant. Well, except for cab drivers.
It's a more fundamental issue than simply being a function of an unclear definition. More saliently, how do you conduct a war against against an abstraction? You can't, obviously; certainly not in any fashion of military action. The whole concept of the "War on Terrorism" is and has always been nothing more than jingoism.
It's been a construct to enact legislation to empower a select few and generate a new type of war business, while controlling the people.
I'm not missing any point. Terrorism is a broad term that isn't going to be summed up in a single sentence. You could be just as picky about a term like geopolitics. It doesn't mean it's a 'bullshit' term. Terror bombing is an actual term used by historians all the time to describe the attacks you're talking about. Clutch wasn't even giving a definition as far as I can tell, but he was responding to you asking if all rape is terrorism because victims feel terror. Well, no it isn't. The standard definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. That's not going to encompass every act of terrorism is human history, but there's no political purpose behind most rapes. I think you do know what the term means, you just don't like the way the media portrays it, which is understandable. That's why I can't watch fox news anymore. I agree, and it's probably racism more than anything else. There's never complaints about Australian or Swedish immigrants, but people complain that poorer countries aren't sending their best even though on average they actually are. The way I see it nearly all American citizens are immigrants, some go back 5 generations instead of 1. That being said, the part I can't get behind is the idea that our culture is equivalent to any other because we have problems, glass houses, and all that. Camden and Detroit make Syria look like a playground, and I mean that before the civil war even started. There's nothing wrong with immigration unless you start opening the door for people that have no desire to integrate.
Thinking out loud here but based on all of the information coming out of Europe these days regarding the recent rash of sexual assaults happening; is it any wonder that women in the Muslim world have to wear tents when they go outside and be accompanied by a male relative? Putting more thought into the whole issue, I don't think the problem is really immigration (in the traditional sense) from the Muslim world, I think it has more to do with making all of these people eligible for refugee status and shotgunning them through the system straight to our doorstep. We are seeing the results in Europe now. We can argue the semantics of terrorism vice murder and all but the bigger issue is integration. Muslims have shown a propensity for not integrating and it creates a hostile atmosphere (which can lead to mosques burning, bombings and mass shootings). Either you want to come here because you need a change and intend on picking up on the cultural norms of your adopted home or you don't and don't immigrate. Why can't it be that simple? Additionally, why aren't places like Europe putting these guys on a sort of probationary entry status? As in: you start molesting the women or livestock or start blowing shit up and you get to go home-type of deal?
The problem is, no matter how big a shit hole a person is from, when they leave that shit hole, they miss the familiar. So they start to try and mold their new home to be more like what they're used to. It happened to North Idaho when Californians started moving there en-masse in the 80-90's. We were a quiet area with plenty of hunting and fishing. And then came the Californians eager to join in our idyllic lifestyle. But in their eyes things needed to change just a wee-bit. No trespassing signs went up everywhere, new regulations were passed governing signs, sidewalks, trash cans, and everything else you could think of. Within 10-15 years transplant Californians outnumbered the natives and it was for all intents and purposes a mini California just south of Canada. The friendly populace which had made it such a great area fled. There is no way I would live there now, even if I could afford the $1M+ price tag on the property I grew up on. The whole area was turned into a resort for the rich, poor people are not allowed. Small groups assimilate because they have to, but when you get large scale migration they don't assimilate because they will only associate with those who have familiar ties and beliefs.
Women Fleeing War Say European Refugee Camps Are No Safe Haven http://www.takepart.com/article/201...st&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=tp-traffic But it's mostly women and children refugees, right?
Assimilation is slow, but it happens over the generations. People who are older when they emigrate of course are not going to change much, but their kids will. Then their kids will be even more Americanized, and pretty much generations after that are 100% American.
If you can't sum it up then odds are it is a bullshit term. And still no one has proffered a working definition. Here's the one from the dictionary.com: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. You'll note the use of 'especially' - meaning that there are acts of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce that do NOT include political purposes. So that doesn't really help. Let's go to the FBI definition: Now let's look at Homeland Security's definition (Please note, the seem to be moving towards not calling it terrorism anymore, but rather 'violent extremism' which is an equally squishy and useless term): Now keep in mind, I wandered around the DHS site, and could not find a straightforward definition of terrorism, but I did find this: That sounds great, a whole department dedicated to protecting us from terrorism. Only problem? They don't tell you what it actually means. Now let's look at the State Dept.'s definition: So no, I don't know what it means. But I'll get to the main point. In the 60's, LBJ conducted a 'War on Poverty.' It sounds nice, did some good things. The use of the term 'war' meant we took it seriously, not that we actually went to war over it. Enter the... ...War on Drugs. This is the template for the current War on Terror. Initially, we didn't really mean a war. However, by the 80's, we meant that precisely. We went after foreign countries, we armed our police to the teeth, and modified civil liberties here because we were 'at war.' Now you see the entrance of actual soldiers into the war against an abstract term. Just like the 'War on Terror.' So why am I making such a big deal about this? Ok, fair question. Let's step it back a moment. During my first interview with a potential client, I always asked 'what does success in this matter look like to you?' It was probably the most important question I asked, because it let me know what was expected, and when I knew the job was done. We currently have invaded several countries - invaded the sovereignty of many more including allies, spent Trillions (not billions) of dollars fighting a war. And let's be clear the 'war on terror' is precisely that. There are soldiers involved. Drones. Tanks. Frankly, all the stuff you'd expect to be used in a war. The only thing missing? A goal. If you can't define terrorism, then how in the hell do you know when 'you've won?' In this case, is the goal to never win? If so, do we just have to accept that we will keep sacrificing our soldiers' (and in some cases citizens') lives, our infrastructure, and our rights because we haven't actually defined what the fuck we're at war with? I'm not criticizing Bush, but remember the 'Mission Accomplished' banner on the Aircraft Carrier? What gets that same banner in the context of the 'War on Terror?' I have no idea, and I really want to know because we are sacrificing our integrity as a nation to fight this war. It would be nice to know that there was an end point. Figuring out the end point requires knowing what we're fighting. And 14 years into this, no one really can give me an answer. If that doesn't frighten you, it should. We're in a Presidential Election year. Not one of the candidates can seem to define it, but they are all for it, whatever it is. That's really fucking scary.
This is the thing about election time that pisses me off the most. Regardless of where your political alliances are you see both sides trying to claim responsibility for oil/gas prices as either the fault of the guy in charge if they're high and they don't like them or due to the guy in charge if they're low and they align with their party. It's like people have no fucking concept of even basic economics let alone something as complex as global commodities pricing.
What do you mean, "like"? People also tend to believe something that makes sense to them, even if they have no concept about the underlying complexities and sophistication around the subject. You tell them something, they mull it over, don't find anything that doesn't make sense to them, so they sign off on it. Be a subject matter expert in ANYTHING and then listen to a news reporter discuss it, and get it absolutely wrong, and watch the mass of people accept it as fact because it came from the news. And now that viewer is a self-described subject matter expert, because they think they're smarter than they are. Same goes for Wikipedia... people read a 3 line overview on something and then feel like their opinion holds the same weight as someone who's spent years studying it in depth. Anti-vaxors are a prime example of this.