rgbrock1

I was recently reading a report on the continued violence in Syria. According to the Syrian "authorities", most of those killed have been terrorists.

Not too long ago in Russia, some demonstrators were doing their thing, demonstrating against Vlad. The Russian "authorities" labeled the demonstrators, terrorists.

The Taliban has labeled those NATO troops who inadvertently, or not, burned some Korans as terrorists.

There are many more such examples.

It seems to me that the word terrorist no longer denotes those who use violence against innocent civilian populations. For whatever there nefarious reasonings. It seems to me that the word terrorist is now being used to label anyone who doesn't agree with another. (My son argued with me last weekend over the amount of time he plays Army Ranger in one of his Xbox 360 video games. Perhaps, in arguing, I should label him a terrorist.)

Are we starting to lose sight of what a terrorist really is and what terrorism really stands for?

UniFoxOs

Old saying - One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

UFO

KBPsen

Has it ever been used that way? Hasn't it always been used to denote those who use violence against our innocent civilian populations? If it was to be used to denote anyone using violence against innocent populations the list would be very long indeed.

Now?

Has it ever been in sight?

corsair

You need to get used to the idea that terrorist is a pejorative term to be used against your enemies whoever they are. It's actual meaning is no longer relevant.

But we all know what terrorism is. The deliberate slaughter and brutal treatment of civilians in order to terrorise and cow them into supporting your cause or rejecting the other side's cause. Recent examples include Gadaffi, Syria, Taliban, Al Qaeda. Both governments and anti government forces use terrorism both historically and currently.

It's always unjustified.

sitigeltfel

You forgot Adams, McGuiness and the other lot.

corsair

I said recent as in very recent. I didn't forget, no need for any snide implications.

sitigeltfel

I am sorry you took it as "snide", it was merely an observation. People forget quickly.

radeng

What about small groups wishing to change the government and attacking armed forces personnel? Examples include the Haggana, the Irgun, EOKA..
Are they terrorists?

corsair

Of course all three would have been described as terrorists by the opposing forces. But that's neither here nor there. I don't know about EOKA but the other two definitely used terrorist tactics as part of their arsenal.

You'd be hard pushed to find any organisation like that who didn't use terrorism at some point.

Ancient Observer

After the 2nd World War, my father was sent back to the Middle East (where he had spent 3 years of War) to Palestine.
He says he was shot at by both aspirant Israelis and aspirant Palestinians. They were both, according to the League of Nations, "Terrorists".

After that delightful time, the Israeli terrorists got to run the Government, and got to kill the Palestinian terrorists.

unstable load

I agree with corsair that the word has become meaningless.
It's use is dependent on the user's point of view and the perceived urgency or seriousness of the situation or the emotional gain wanted from it's use.

rgbrock1

Using corsair's definition as:

I don't think the word has become meaningless at all. The key words being: the deliberate slaughter of civilians..... How can that ever not be terrorism?

racedo

By that definition British Army engaged in terrorism in Derry on Bloody Sunday in 1972..............Interesting.

Solid Rust Twotter

Terrorist = government in waiting.



Cynical, I know...

rgbrock1

Yes, I would agree that the actions undertaken by the British 1st Para on 30 Jan 1972 would constitute terrorism.

Just as the actions undertaken by the Ohio Army National Guard on 4 May 1970 in the deliberate killing of protesting, but unarmed, Kent State university students would also constitute an act of terrorism. (The firing of 67 rounds of ammunition over 13 seconds time seems to be rather deliberate, no?)

The deliberate killing of ANY unarmed civilian(s) for whatever reason can NEVER be justified. And will ALWAYS constitute a form of terrorism. In my mind anyway.

charliegolf

Bloody Sunday. Terrorism? Criminal maybe, but planned, cold and calculating like Omagh? Bit of a leap.
CG

alisoncc

How times change. Nelson Mandela was incarcerated on Robben Island for being a terrorist. Mind you I can't think of any other country in Africa where a terrorist would be so well looked after as to survive twenty seven years in prison with minimal side effects, but then again the Afrikanner government were so uncivilised.

Lonewolf_50

This phrase typically renders the words previously posted utterly meaningless, in that it robs the poster of crediblity.

Always and Never are caution flags that typically cause me to use view with skepticism much of anything said in conjunction with them.

racedo

If death and violence against Civilian populations is method of describing Terrorism does using drones to kill people fall into this category ?

Just curious........

corsair

Ironically no, squaddies losing the plot and shooting randomingly yes. Deliberate attempt to cower the population on the part the military establishment, no.

Quite simply the Paras had just come from Aden, the Arabs were not treated as people. They were hardened at that point. Not so long after that they were in Derry, Northern Ireland, not the UK as they saw it. Everybody hated them. Shots were fired, game on. People were targets. Remember that the paras who got a lot of kills on the day were heroes to their comrades.

This was a military unit who lost discipline and control. Not terrorists.

Shameful for the regiment concerned. But not terrorism.

I speak as someone who hated them at the time.