What do you know about terrorism?!

[Jayhawker Soule]

By providing ideological cover you serve as both an example of their effectiveness and an asset securing that effectiveness in the future.

So, in other words, agree with me or you are an accomplice of terror.

No, rather, by providing ideological cover one serves as both an example of the effectiveness of terrorism and an asset securing that effectiveness in the future. There is a difference, I believe, between an accomplice and an enabler.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". ...

• While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism, the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:
  Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988).​

[wiki]​

This is a really good definition!

I believe it to be very good as well. It is interesting (and instructive) how assiduously it's been ignored.

 

[!Fluffy!]

The problem is that Americans only get one side to their news stories.

Your premise here is indefensible, sorry.
Americans have access to any news they WANT. If some choose to hang out on strictly liberal/conservative pro this anti that forums or access strictly liberal / conservative news sites, talk shows etc. that is their choice, not a government mandate.

People in some parts of the world are treated to a steady stream of government sponsored antisemitic propaganda from cradle to grave.

Yes it is biased and most of us have had enough already of the same old one-sided hate mongering, tyvm.

Just double checking the actual exchange against the fantasy re-write.

I agree, you are so right. Americans have access to any news they *the government* WANT. I apperciate your honesty It is certain that any reports coming out of Iraq accusing occupational forces of being behind car bombings will be brutally censored.

See, here in the free world we have unfettered access to any news, opinion, fantasy conspiracy site etc. all over the world we WANT (thanks in part to the First Amendment and the whole Fourth Estate concept )
Freedom of the press is nonexistent in many propaganda-immersed countries where the government strictly controls, owns and operates media outlets such as:

Malaysia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Malaysia

China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_control_of_the_media_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran#Freedom_of_Expression

Saudi Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#Political_Freedoms

Freedom of the Press: According to Reporters Without Borders, more than a third of the world's people live in countries where there is no press freedom. Overwhelmingly, these people live in countries where there is no system of democracy or where there are serious deficiencies in the democratic process.​

Freedom of the press is an extremely problematic concept for most non-democratic systems of government since, in the modern age, strict control of access to information is critical to the existence of most non-democratic governments and their associated control systems and security apparatus. To this end, most non-democratic societies employ state-run news organisations to promote the propaganda critical to maintaining an existing political power base and suppress (often very brutally, through the use of police, military, or intelligence agencies) any significant attempts by the media or individual journalists to challenge the approved "government line" on contentious issues.​

In such countries, journalists operating on the fringes of what is deemed to be acceptable will very often find themselves the subject of considerable intimidation by agents of the state. This can range from simple threats to their professional careers (firing, professional blacklisting) to death threats, kidnapping, torture, and assassination.​

MORE​

There is therefore no logical reason to believe anything coming from undemocratic states where freedom of the press doesn't exist -- it is most likely filtered, biased or just propaganda.

 

[Sunstone]

Exactly. What's wrong with that? Why do you hate freedom?

So, in other words, agree with me or you are an accomplice of terror.

Dang it! It's precisely comments like yours that enable terrorism! Don't you know that?

 

[!Fluffy!]

Dang it! It's precisely comments like yours that enable terrorism! Don't you know that?

hm, and i always thought it was comments like that that encouraged vapid responses.

 

[Sunstone]

hm, and i always thought it was comments like that that encouraged vapid responses.

By "vapid responses", would you include someone making wild, borderline hysterical claims about other people that they are neither prepared to, nor capable of, backing up with fact? Just curious.

 

[!Fluffy!]

By "vapid responses", would you include someone making wild, borderline hysterical claims about other people that they are neither prepared to, nor capable of, backing up with fact? Just curious.

no hon, just yours.

 

[Sunstone]

no hon, just yours.

So, you don't consider unsubstantiated accusations to be vapid? What do you consider them to be -- dishonest? Or, do you condone such trash posts, Moon Woman?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By "vapid responses", would you include someone making wild, borderline hysterical claims about other people that they are neither prepared to, nor capable of, backing up with fact? Just curious.

Speaking of "borderline hysterical".

By the way, what do you think of the Schmid definition of terrorism?

 

[Yerda]

No, rather, by providing ideological cover one serves as both an example of the effectiveness of terrorism and an asset securing that effectiveness in the future.

What constitutes ideological cover?

 

[Sunstone]

Speaking of "borderline hysterical".

You're much better when you stick to facts, Jay.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or, do you condone such trash posts, Moon Woman?

Oh, my - 'borderline hysterical people writing trash post' - and from a moderator no less. To paraphrase a few posts back: you're projecting, Sunstone.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh, my - 'borderline hysterical people writing trash post' - and from a moderator no less. To paraphrase a few posts back: you're projecting, Sunstone.

Jay, you're not in a very good posistion here. You made wild accusations agianst me and then failed miserably to substatiate them. I'd call those wild accusations "trash posts". And precisely because they were so wild and unsubstantiated, the tone of the posts seemed near hysteria to me. But that's just my impression.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, you're not in a very good posistion here. You made wild accusations agianst me and ...

Perhaps the problem lies with your reading comprehension.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps the problem lies with your reading comprehension.

As before, you're got no facts, just rhetoric. Perhaps the problem lies with your inability to substantiate your claims.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As before, you're got no facts, just rhetoric. Perhaps the problem lies with your inability to substantiate your claims.

To which claim are you referring, Sunstone? And, again, what do you think of the Schmid definition?

 

[Sunstone]

To which claim are you referring, Sunstone?

Are you seriously suggesting, Jay, that you have somehow managed to substantiate even one of your accusations? Pick any one of them you want. Substantiate it. You haven't done that with any of them as yet.

And, again, what do you think of the Schmid definition?

You answer the questions I asked you first. Then I'll answer yours.

 

[!Fluffy!]

i think there's some overreacting going on. it's a loaded topic made increasingly difficult by the arbitrary slaughter of the English language -- (in this place anyway it's our only valid means of communication) so it's to be expected.

for the record i 'get' Jay's posts, and i also get the frustration behind the exchange..

maybe we need an open dialogue exploring the rational vs irrational reasons behind the underlying op issue i.e.: WHY would there suddenly at this point in history be such a rigorous attempt made to suppress, dilute, eradicate or undefine out of existence the word TERRORISM? Who are the players behind this (ostensibly propagandic) ploy?

It's a valid question that needs to be addressed, but I think those who don't get it need to go back and read 1984, visit the Ministry of Truth, take a little trip to Joy Camp and learn how to speak Newspeak.

That would be doubleplusgood...

I bet if someone were to ask us 10 years ago to define terrorism we would have given pretty much the same answers, and the accepted final authority would have been Webster.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

For someone to stubbornly pretend like they don't know what they "used to" know, or what "everyone" knows, to reject the common consensus when given a valid, authoritative definition of a word's meaning... especially a word of common usage in literature and history.. well at one time such odd behavior was a sure sign of mental deficiency or pscyhological problems.

I call it thoughtcrime, but the Ministry of Truth would disagree. Oh well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As before, you're got no facts, just rhetoric. Perhaps the problem lies with your inability to substantiate your claims.

To which claim are you referring, Sunstone? And, again, what do you think of the Schmid definition?

Are you seriously suggesting, Jay, that you have somehow managed to substantiate even one of your accusations?

Have a good evening, Sunstone.

 

[Sunstone]

Have a good evening, Sunstone.

You too, Jay.