Terrorism

[GRITS]

It is a powerful word. I’m not sure it has always been able to pull such strong emotions and feelings of fear as it has since 9/11 but the word is definitely a room silencer in the US these days.
Where do we draw the line? Is there danger of "terror within" if the US government (or any government) doesn't apply special tactics to stop it? How much leeway do we allow them? Is it in our best interest? Who decides what “our best interest” is? Does a ‘safe America” justify ‘any means’?

Terrorism at home is not new to most of the world, but the feelings are still in their infancy in the US.
Racial profiling is becoming ‘acceptable’ practice, two hour lines at the airport are no longer considered an inconvenience but are now just the norm.
I have accepted that things must change because ‘our world’ changed on 9/11, the feelings of safety and security skewed, but is there a program I can watch or paper I can read that can help me with the whys and the whens and the how much more? 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, fiction? Right? Why do I feel like I am in the prologue then?


As Lynne Stewart appeals her conviction as a traitor for helping her client, a convicted terrorist, (she was appointed by the court to defend) she brings up the question…..

Are Americans post 9/11 over zealous with their prosecution and accusations of terrorism? And is the government ignoring the inalienable rights of our constitution with justifications of ‘for the good of the people’.

Read the latest CNN report and dig through the archives, she was convicted in 2005.
The way they found out that she was communicating with her clients cohorts was with ‘legal’ wiretapping of client attorney conversations, those are believed to be confidential in the US, part of the constitution says you have a right to private consul but the government has the right to tape these conversations if it feels just cause to protect the people.

and then maybe watch the Lodi case on Frontline.
While I don’t feel these guys were as innocent or as guilty as some may think, the way things were handled is disturbing.

Is the word used too loosely? Is it used to get a desired reaction even if justification is questionable? Aiding and abetting? where do we draw the line?

I put this in the debate forum and tried to introduce it as neutrally as possible, which is hard, because I'm scared.
and Im not sure terrorism is what Im afraid of.

[GRITS]

Wow I am really surprised no one responded to this post. 22 views, I admit 3 are mine but out of the other views I would have thought I would get a reply.
Sort of disappointed, Im not sure if people dont want to disagree with me or dont want to agree with me. Maybe it is too deep, too serious, for our normal banters. I talk in pm with a lot of you about serious stuff, and I know you have opinions and I know you like to debate.
Whats the deal?

[Ichigo]

Well i got bored half way down, long posts = bad posts:P
'our world' didn't change on 9/11.. it's the exact same world exact bush decided he'd use it as an excuse to get oil.. and our glorious PM decided to jump on the bandwagon with it. Terrorism was always there, and there was always a 'threat' posed by it, but because of certain events happening and the twats in power forcing us to make it the most important thing in the world, the world has had to change as you said. Racial profiling as GRITS said has become the norm because that's what we've been forced into by the governments, they're saying it's acceptable to protect their nation, whichever nation it may be, even after the countless civil rights laws that history is plagued with to stop this kind of behaviour.
i have 3 letters to the people in power... W T F.

[fritoman]

Terrorism by design is to force people to go along with what you believe, and that is exactly what Bush and the republican party are doing to the American people, they have just past a law today that enables them to beat a confession out of someone and then put them to death for that confession, I dont know about you but if I was going to keep getting beatin until I confessed to something I would confess, even if I didnt do it just so I could get the pain to stop. I have said this many times and this will not be the last until BUSH is out of office, He keeps doing and saying and enacting VERY stupid things and he has to be the WORST president we have EVER had in office.

I know this is off topic just a tad but it does go along with what you are asking, everything he says and does is in the name of protecting us from terrorist, if he wants to take more of our rights away "its for our protection" if he wants to break the law "its for our protection" no one has ever givin him the right to do the things that he does but the controling party in the senate wont stand up to him to make him go by the laws of our constitution, all I can hope is for a change in power in the house and senate and then we will see which laws have been broken by this president.

[Ichigo]

I have said this many times and this will not be the last until BUSH is out of office, He keeps doing and saying and enacting VERY stupid things and he has to be the WORST president we have EVER had in office.

Yet you guys still voted him in for a second term - go figure :blink:

[FreeFall]

I'm not a republican nor do I believe in republican beliefs... but Frooty/Ichigo, you're a dumbass---entirely sorry, but Bush and the rupublican party were not behind these attacks and there is a lot more to it than oil. I wouldn't be so forward but I can't stand it when people blame it on oil. Lets go back to the 70's, I'm not sure but it might reach to the 60's, when Israel was bombing he shit out of Lebanon..who remembers that, it's been going on since then. Hezbollaah may not be the good guy but they're just a reaction to the Israeli occupation in Lebanon..How would you feel if some country was constantly bombing and controlling your land. One could assume you would care a lot. Then here comes America....you think it's about oil? yes there's a lot of oil in the middle east but if you really believe that that's it then I have no response..there may not be as much in Canada but what about the oil in Alberta, is there American military occupation holding down that fort? I don't have a particualrly strong argument when it comes to middle-eastern politics and war but oil is NOT the only factor. It is not the cause of war and it is not the solution to this war.
There has already been a debate or two related to religion...and lets face it political philosphy and psychology all relate to this. The united states is a super-nation. The USA's economic status is far beyond any country that is being bombed or tested upon for currently unsafe pharmecuticals. This is our world...we fight for what we want and for what we can win..... we fight for power.... I don't know what else to say

My argument is fairly uneducated at this time but as I know so far, we can't simply blame this on islaam and judaism. lets face it.....you may be pro bush or not, I don't care...but republicans are working towards control of this earth and frankly we're f***ed.

[Ichigo]

ok much of your post except the "you're a dumbass and it's not about oil" seemed very.. dumbass-like:)
Wait... that means i agree i'm a dumbass and it's not for oil?! Ok i'm a dumbass but you can't deny the incentive of oil was one of the main reasons bush wanted war.
Bush and the Republic party weren't behind these "terrorist" attacks, i agree. But in all fairness, this "War for justice" or whatever the hell they're claiming it to be these days has probably claimed more Iraqi civilian lives than the americans that died in 9/11 - so why is it the american army's (and to a lesser extent, the british army) actions seen as terrorist actions? the result is the same, civilian lives behind lost for no reason. The difference is the media and the government (which controls the media) have painted a picture for you that the army is the good guys and Iraq/Iran/Wherever-Bush-Decides-To-Invade are the bad guys and like a sucker you've fallen right into their trap.
I don't claim that oil is the only cause, however you cannot deny the significant financial gain the american oil companies (which Bush is said to have some close ties with at least one of them) weren't an incentive. I also remember Bush stating the war wasn't over oil and they wouldn't occupy any of the oil sites.. then he obviously changed his mind and took over most of the Iraq oil - not seem a tad suspicious to you?
The only positive action that came from the war was the removal of that-guy (forget his name, rofl) from power in iraq like.. 3 years ago? And how many troops are still over in iraq? too many. You can choose to ignore the evidence and just go on in your own fairyland beliefs that the war is "just" and "right", but i don't think i could personally.

[FreeFall]

I by no means think this war is "just and right" .... no war is "just and right" ...

And I am incredibly anti-bush... I was just stating that while oil is a factor in this war it is not the only factor, and what I read from your post I thought that was what you thought the only factor was. Also once all those troops are there, it's a little hard to just pull them all out at once. The way this is going they will continue to remain there for a while despite what much of the population, including myself, would like. And now it looks like a 3rd world war is most likely to happen over North Korea's weapons tests. Kim Jong-Il in general just looks like a shady guy and in recent events, check this out:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/18...visit.html

North Korea, meanwhile, remained defiant. Pyongyang immediately rejected the UN sanctions, saying they amounted to a declaration of war.

[fritoman]

North Korea was the place we should have went insted of looking for the WMDs in Iraq, we knew they were working on them while we were just making up the fact that Iraq had them.

[VashetheR]

All I know is that Bush is the most retarded president ever. Everytime I see one of his conferences his responses to the media is so DUMB lol it's so funny I laugh really hard. Bush sucks.

Why the hell are we in iraq anyway sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks.

Im kinda bothered with what korea is doing and bush keeps making threats saying he is giong to deal with them blah blah blah and that.

ALl I know is that either NEW YORK or Los Angeles are going to be bombed if he doesn't get his shit together. After that incident how the LAX airport in Los Angeles where I live which is 20 minutes away. I kinda watch the news alot more now than I would ever.

They almost pulled another 9/11 in the heart of Los Angeles.. I could have died if they didnt bust them... just to be 20 minutes away from that shit im like damn lol.

But than again growin up around LA is no difference from living every day danger and seeing people die in front of you as a child multiple times, so after a while I just dont care no more. There is no point of being scared when you can't do shit about it. That's how I look at it.


Hey Grits you should cheak out this movie called Iraq For Sale. A very good documentary I saw today came out like a year or so ago. It's a recent film.


But america is the best country ever, I wouldn't want to live no where else.

Mr Foley one of the senators or whatever he is he is spending his spare time cybering with lil boys instead of helpin the country. And now he got busted lol. It makes me wonder how many other congressmen are picking their noses while things are corrupt like this.


It seems to me the only reason why Bush is in Iraq is because he is finishing what his dad couldn't. I mean honestly Sadaam had nothing to do at all with 9/11. Alot of people think he did because when there is a problem with 9/11 all they blame is sadaam sadaam. On the news I heard sadaams name like 90 million times literally and eventually when you repeat things over and over and over than people will start to believe. He has to be doing this for oil or to finish his dad's work he didnt finish. I dont recall them having any proof that sadaam had somethign to do with 9/11 attacks.


lol it's 3:am sorry if I didn't answer your question but I was talking about capitlism to my teacher today and he was discussing alot of things how capitlism has some holes in it. and we were watching this documentary IRAQ for sale.

watch it~

nite.

[Ichigo]

wow.. vash can be sensible sometimes:Pand he's even right, scary :unsure:
the war in iraq was over "WMDs" that didn't actually exist, and immediate "terror threats" from them... basically as vash said it was to finish daddys work and get some oil. How bush even got into presidency is beyond me, he obviously has no clue what he's talking about half the time.. some of the funniest quotes in history come from his mouth - funny because they're so damned stupid. I mean our prime minister's no saint but at least he can almost make a story sound convincable and cock up every interview by contradicting himself in the same damned sentence..

[8-up]

Let's ease up on the Bush bashing.

Most people don't realize that the president really has no power (besides veto). Look it up in the US constitution. It's the legislative branch that has the real power.

Bush is only doing what his advisors and Joint Chiefs of Staff tell him.
That's what every president does.

Anyway, I think GRITS is wanting to discuss terrorism, not what the president is doing.
Let's try to keep it on that topic.

[Ichigo]

So what bush is doing isn't terrorism? ;o

[8-up]

Terrorism is:

n: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation[sic] or coercion or instilling fear

(WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)


no...Bush isn't doing that

[VashetheR]

Let's ease up on the Bush bashing.

Most people don't realize that the president really has no power (besides veto). Look it up in the US constitution. It's the legislative branch that has the real power.

Bush is only doing what his advisors and Joint Chiefs of Staff tell him.
That's what every president does.

Anyway, I think GRITS is wanting to discuss terrorism, not what the president is doing.
Let's try to keep it on that topic.

if BUSH didnt have no power why the hell are we in iraq when sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11?

IF BUSH had no power how the hell did he even get elected when Florida clearly cheated because his brother was the governor of florida and held the state up for a re count down.


Bush sucks! In the last 5 years the poverty percentage has gone up. Last year was the first year that the percentage didnt change. The poverty percentage was going down and coincidentally that percentage has gone up with the same amount of years bush has entered presidency.

Bush is freaking retarded. You should honestly watch his conferences.. He doesn't even respond to them with knowledge of anything.

Everything he has his favorite quote is, "I REJECT THAT". When they ask questions about problems that are currently happening he's like "I REJECT THAT". That's his favorite statement. How do you reject something that is clearly going on and happening right now live? He doesn't even answer the questions.


The republicans have been winning all the seats and they been running everything for the last 5 years. They are highly going to lose their seats because of the foley incident how he molest lil boys on the internet lol. So when next election comes I hope to see some changes.

And btw im not a repub or democrat I just analyze things lol.

The constitution may say he has no power but that doesn't mean they arent exploiting the consitition. For example there are true facts. PHONE tapping is against the constitution. That removes our privacy and it's unconsitutional for the government to evade on peoples privacy. Now 8-up does that mean the government abides by everything in the consitution? I think not.

Bush is a straight retard straight up.


Only reason why we are in iraq is for imperalism reasons. To expand and take resources from iraq. OILllllllllll~ for his daddys business he couldnt finish~ lol. Sadaam had nothing to do they have no evidence on him. Just that people think he has something to do because when an incident comes up from 9/11 the congress and everyone blame sadaam They bring his name up several times. And when they do that after a while it's plugged into your head saying sadaam had something to do with 9/11. He had nothing to do with it.

[Ichigo]

Is he not using the threat of violence on the american public to attain his political goals? Granted he's not the one commiting the violence, however he's using the threat of it to justify whatever he wants to do.
Therefore terrorising the american citizens and using the fear to his advantage. Terrorist.
Not to mention what he's been doing in iraq.

[Quickening]

I dont' have the time to do a full blown post right now.

But the idea that Bush is doing all of this is just ignorant. The President really does not have that much power. His office can suggest things, he can suggest things to the Congress and the Congress must enact things. WIthin Congress there are hundred of bi-partisan commitees that decide on things to present to all of Congress.

Iraq is a can of worms. Saddam was a terrible dictator, that did nothing for his people. He weaseled his way around UN sanctions and yet the UN did nothing. I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm not getting into that. But Bush was told that there were weapons in Iraq. He can only go with what information was provided to him. So he figures, take out an evil dictator, get rid of weapons, help the people of Iraq and eventually get a working democracy in the country. From there democracy could spread in teh middle east, as its mostly held by monarchs or dictators. Its not a bad idea. Though you rarely hear about it, people in the middle east are already expierencing new freedoms with cell phones and satellite TV allowing them to know whats really happening in the world, not just what their dictator tells them. The IDEA was good, the EXECUTION was not. THere is a difference. Oil from Iraq. Yeh that seems good except that US main provider is Canada, so if really wanted to horde all the oil, we would of attacked Canada.

Terrorism, ugh. It can't be stopped, there have been radicals in the world since teh dawn of the world. I think the only way to stop radicals, is to break down their ideology rather than trying to kill them off.

I peronsally could care less if the govt wastes their time tapping my phone. So they get to hear about my boring college routine and I might send of some red flags when I talk guns and explosions with my dad or uncle. And then they realize, o this boy is Texan..freakin gun crazy kids. Big deal. If it leads to stopping a terrorism attack, that is great. I would rather let the govt listen to our boring lives and maybe pick up a terrorist call and be able to stop another 9/11. If you think America is bad, look at Britain and London especially. They have thousand of cameras and are able to track individual people across the city. They are also starting a program of cameras on all roads that can track license plates. So at any given time, their govt can track you down to a specific area. That too me has gone too far.

Terrorism is scary, people wanted results, this is what the govt delivered. The govt that the people voted for, so if you want to blame someone, you can look at yourself. This November, the Congress may switch the democratic party, who cares? Throughout the US history rarely did one party control the Congress and President; what the Republicans have had for the past six years is very rare.

O and Vash, grow up. Calling a person retarded/stupid/w/e, just because you don't agree with their actions is very childish. You are spewing emotions rather than facts.

Everyone go out and watch V for Vendetta. Great movie, acting, action and plot and directly relates to this topic.

[Ichigo]

where've you heard that about billion cameras and things in UK? :S we really don't have that.. We do however have far too many speed cameras. lol:P
I agree, V for Vendetta is a brilliant film and relates to the topic at hand very well - and that's the path we're heading down if the governments keep going the way they are.

[Wha?]

Keep in mind how much power the executive branch has been getting recently. It's by no means absolute, but a lot of power has been granted, taken, and tolerated since 2001 in the name of security and freedom.

Quick's sentiment, "I would rather let the govt listen to our boring lives and maybe pick up a terrorist call and be able to stop another 9/11", is not uncommon. It is dangerous, however; as the illegality of such "fishing" campaigns is due to the extreme danger to freedom. Secret arrests for secret trials with secret evidence, secret charges, and no right to ethical treatment, independant lawyers, or outside contact means the first time somebody decides dissidents are harmful to their career, innocent people will start disappearing (see: the regimes of Augusto Pinochet, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and for a major twist of irony, Saddam Hussein). Without dissent, even the most free society becomes totalitarian overnight. Strict laws on the subject are to prevent exploitation by corrupt officials, an especially common trait to develop in law enforcement organizations. Remember that the people who will abuse the power are indistinguishable from those who will not.

As for "Bush bashing", try to keep in mind Bush the man is totally different from Bush the administration. Most people combine the two for all government rights or wrongs without looking a little deeper to see if it really applies. For example, the Iraq invasion (and subsequent rebuilding contracts) was dreamed up years before by less-than-ethical individuals who just needed a segue with which to gain popular support, and thus blaming Bush is erroneous (though legally, he does share responsibility). Bush can be blamed for playing a major roll in turning "terrorist" into a buzzword for political gains, though.

Back to the original topic, terrorism is by no means just coercion through violence on civillians, so perhaps it should be defined as:
<blockquote>n: the calculated infliction of severe anxiety on a target through conspicuous, graphic, violent actions (usually military in nature), or the threat thereof, in order to attain goals through coercion</blockquote>
This still applies to a lot of actions which are debatable as to how &quot;terrorism&quot; fits (oddly coincidental). Thankfully, terrorism doesn't share the same lack of definition in the general public's mind with communism. Communism could be thrown around to a far greater extent, as nobody truly understood what it was. Actors, politicians, and average joes could be blacklisted because there was no mental connection between the label and guerilla violence.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

ya its over used, but then most euphmysms are over used by politicians.

[Wanksta]

in my opinion terrorism seems to be a very effective way of getting attention as shown by the attaks all around thw world, no that it is right. but it definately gives that sense of fear. and what peop[le nowadays drive their lfe on is mostly fear of what? death and pain.

people definatley blame a bit too much on the president, i mean hes only one person, what about the senate?????

if all the decision were left to one person wouldnt this be a monarchy?

i know that america my have some screwed up morals but arent they fighting to protect u?

if the government just sat back instead of tryin to protect agaisnt terrorism wouldnt we be kinda screwed?

i think the government may be a little messed up but im sure there must be alot more to it than oil.

and like someone said, why would the country elect him if he wasnt better than another cantidate? if u really dont like him so much why not try to get him impeached? war is wrong in so many ways but if u see it so bad why not go out and try to get it stopped?

i know it may take alot of work, but if people have so much dedication to stopping war why dont they go to law school and become president?

i mean if theres a bunch of stoners thinkin they know whats right for the country why not show some dedication? why not do something? everyone thinks they know whats right, in their own eyes. id like to see this counntry survive a day without being run by some sort of government.

[Ichigo]

First off wank, just to correct you on a point or 2.
If the country was run by 1 person it's known as a dictatorship. We (the English) have a monarchy, but the Queen has virtually no power. (Monarchy = has a king/queen. Doesn't necessarily mean they have any political power)
&quot;if the government just sat back instead of tryin to protect agaisnt terrorism wouldnt we be kinda screwed?&quot; I think there's a fine line between protecting against terrorism, and invading countries who had/have nothing to do with terrorism.
&quot;and like someone said, why would the country elect him if he wasnt better than another cantidate?&quot;. There's quite some contraversy about the first election when he made it into presidency. And the second election.. well i think he was the lesser of 2 evils. Al Gore didn't seem to be a very straight up kinda guy. lol
&quot;i know it may take alot of work, but if people have so much dedication to stopping war why dont they go to law school and become president?&quot; Presidency is nothing to do with What you know, it's WHO you know that counts. You could be the dumbest bugger in america and still become president because you know the right people (bush for example).
&quot;id like to see this counntry survive a day without being run by some sort of government.&quot; That would never ever happen, it'd be like School with no Teachers. The country would run amock while people fought over power until someone took over the country. It may be a nice idea but government-like establishments have existed practically forever and they aren't going to go away, they are needed.. dispite the abuse the system gets from the people in control.

[8-up]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/janua...peanutskill.htm

[VashetheR]

After 3 months of this debate or 4 or whatever.

I have come back with a whole head of knowledge.

And yet, I have to say bush is a retard president that shouldn't be in office.

The Executive Branch has crazy power. Not everything goes by the constituion.

Congress has not declared war since WWII. All of our wars after that has been from the executive branch engaging into war.

Also.


Usually the Vice President has no power but to be a tie breaker in office. Dick Chaney has alot of power. And he's going to have our ass in Iran pretty soon.

There is an investigation on Dick Chaneys advisors right now from the executive branch that is connected to Iran.

In the executive branch Bush can now interprit a bill how he says it. I think it's called something like Presidential Marks. Something bushed created.

Bush is not suppose to inteprit the law at all. Not by a single margin. That's the Judicial Branches job.

If the president can even have the ability to interprit the law at any point there is definately something going on that is wrong.

Everyone doesn't follow what's written on the Constitution. If that was the case slavery would have never happened in America when the Declaration of Independence was suppose to blacks as well.

But yea I will come back later on with alot more evidence to the topics im talking about in this post.

Im very tired been up working on my Finals Project. I just pulled a 24 hour lol.

I lost all respect for Bush after hurricane katrina. He is the worse president EVER. Worse than Nixon and Hoover.

[8-up]

This is not a thread about Bush.
I've already said that before.

Keep it on terrorism.

[VashetheR]

hehe that's why I mentioned Iran. Because that's our next target to invade them. They are supplying the jihadist in iraq. The Shiite.

[Annatar]

I take it you've all heard the argument that a lot of governments are guilty themselves of terrorism with these new laws?

&quot;Using violence or the threat of violence&quot; sounds remarkably similar to what happens when rights are removed &quot;because otherwise terrorists can freely cause carnage in our country.&quot; (Note, the second bit isnt an exact quote because I can't remember the exact wording on why Britain needs universal identity cards, and various other issues in many countries).

Something made me laugh/cry/hang my head in despair recently. The australian prime minister was quoted saying &quot;a vote for the democrats (in the US) is a vote for terrorism.&quot; Is he even allowed to overtly meddle in other countries politics like that?

There is no doubt that terrorism is a real threat in this day and age. But then there are a lot of incidents that suggest the muslim community are repressed. Does anyone really know what happened with that brazilian guy who got shot in london because the police thought, for some unknown reason, that he was a terrorist?

How did it get this way? To look for a close analogy, I am pretty sure (although without statistics) that the vast proportion of school-shooters are white. I suspect the same comment could be made on paedophiles, although I'm not sure there. Why don't we keep white people away from our children?

To steal an idea from some author who's name I cannot recall (michael crichton?), the point of all this is a state of fear, where people will agree to the decisions of a government, or other group of people, because there is a common enemy or threat which must be faced. Communism, pollution, jewish people (a favorite for many centuries), and so on.

The question of whether the word terrorism is overused isn't really the point, to my mind. The question of whether we are pushing a large portion of the world population into a hole because of the actions of a minority is closer, but still not there. The question is, how much did we help this situation, where people know there are terrorists out there, but have reason to worry how much they are being told is a lie?

I don't know what the solution is, although generic bush bashing (which I used to love so much) doesn't really get us anywhere. Neither does the rhetoric that I now love. So what do we do?

I realise that this is very long, and with the amount of questions seems more like an introduction that an opinion. That's what it is meant to be, I don't have all the answers, and I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

p.s. @froot: quick is right... the last time I saw statistics we were the most watched people in the world.