jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (35 posts)

What is your definition of terrorism?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    For me, it would entail the coalition of an elite and a government to terrorize a third group, the people. For instance, the collusion of Mandchurian candidates and the CIA to attack totally randomly the Boston Marathon venue or to go on a killing spree in a theater (the last Batman would be a perfect example).

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      They are terrorists, we are freedom fighters.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I couldn't express it better.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Strikes me as your world will have very few terrorists.  You've never been able to prove CIA (or any govt. agency) complicity in 911, the marathon or any other event others would call terrorism. 

      Of course, if you're talking definitions here, you can make up your own, including CIA activity.  "Any time a CIA member picks up a phone it is helping kill some Americans" for instance, by definition courtesy Maxoxam.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What is the purpose of the CIA if not to destabilize countries that privilege their interests versus ours? You strike me as an intelligent person, did you read John Perkins? If you REALLY are interested in your history check his books, he was working for them.
        It is also interesting that most of the killers were at point or another linked to the FBI, CIA...

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So it appears your topic isn't really about the definition of terrorism, but about your views that the USG and the CIA are terrorist organizations, right?

          Why didn't you just say so upfront?

          GA

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We always (especially now) refer to the citizen as THE terrorist or the potential terrorist whereas the reality is gloomier. We arrest, trial, jail whistleblowers like Manning, Kiriakou, Hitselberger, Drake, Leibowitz, Kim, Sterling... and we glorify the villains. Do you really that whoever can blow the Boston marathon venue? Do you really that kids in their 20s will have military arsenals without being suspected? In a time where the "homeland" defense budget is increasing, domestic terrorism is increasing too, does it seem logic?
            My answer was unequivocal.

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't agree that "citizens" is the descriptor we apply to the description of terrorists. I think group or organization is the more general term.

              An opinion on the names mentioned, is just that, an opinion based on one's perception of the facts. And we are all entitled to opinions. Sometimes the lines are very blurred and the "facts' are not as cut and dried as usual.

              To the Boston Marathon Bombers - of course they were so-something kids making pressure-cooker bombs - from internet instructions. No military arsenal involved. Homeland Security does not monitor pressure cooker sales - so yes, I really do think they could have done it without "government" involvement.

              GA

    3. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I was about to respond seriously, but it seems that you weren't asking seriously in the first place.

      ...This is a joke post, right? Because if it isn't, then you'd have to be clinically insane, and it would be a pain in the ass to have to call the proper medical authorities to retrieve you.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Obviously I'm insane but in that same logic, if I am what are you?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Socially insane. It's an entirely different thing.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Both have the same adjective "insane" but you will notice that you acknowledged it.

          2. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Socially inane more like..............

    4. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you feel it needs a combination of components? Why does it have to include an "elite" and/or a "government" component?

      Why couldn't terrorism just be the resulting acts of small-scale unaffiliated groups, like Boca Haram (sp?), or some yahoo White Supremacist group, or a disenchanted anarchist group the like The Weathermen?

      Ok, I admit those are leading questions, because I already know the answers. Any other definition of terrorism would not give you the platform you seek for your particular views.

      But to answer your OP topic question, terrorism, for me, only requires terrorist acts - regardless of who perpetrates them. The CIA, Bin Laden, or Sammy Skinhead.

      ps. Did you say the theater killings were an act of terrorism? I don't agree, but I may have misunderstood your intent.

      GA

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The combination of components is necessary since it determines the players and the interests at stake otherwise where would be the point of terrorism?
        To kill Kennedy, you need the financial support but equally the branch of the government that won't go against you.
        When people act by using terrorism the targets are governmental, they won't blow civilians. They know that if civilians are blown up, their cause is lost. Take examples such as the "Weather Underground", the "Baader-Meinhof group"...
        Would you consider your government as a source of domestic terrorism? After all what they can do internationally, will as well be relevant domestically.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Max, ya got me. I don't know whether to backtrack, agree with you, or plow on. So I will do a little of all three.

          I think I missed one of your points about the components of terrorism. I spoke as if I were defining terrorists instead of terrorism. Taking "elites" as someone better off than the terrorists, then I have to agree that terrorism involves at least two of your three components - 1, the terrorist, and 2, the folks they are terrorizing, which would be your "elites" or a governing body.

          I was wrong you were right. (Ha! most valuable words a married man can know)

          But... that does not mean I agree with your contentions that the CIA or USG are trrorists conducting terrorism.

          And, their targets may be governmental, but yes, they definitely do target civilians. It puzzles me how you can say otherwise. I must be missing your point - again.

          No, I do not consider my government as a terrorist organization. Misguided and wrong-headed sometimes, but not terrorist.

          GA

    5. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Terrorism is government by any means.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why do we agree and why many people don't see it? What do we see that they don't?

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know if we agree on everything but I do think you make some interesting points and observations. I think there is a mindset in this country that what the elites tell us long enough becomes facts and when questioned they charge that the remarks are un-American or un-patriotic. The one thing I do relish about this country is that while you may state your opinion, getting thrown in jail for it is a lot more prevalent in foreign countries that are so called free than it is here.

  2. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago

    I think that terrorism need not be defined so specifically.

    To me, terrorism is simply the act of using fear to control or manipulate another. This may occur at a domestic scale or a larger, more political scale, but it is still the same concept.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In what way the US or the rest of the world is not under terrorism? Our silent governmental participation in domestic and international act of terrorism is a reality. The Iraqi government that "called" us just denounced Saudi to control the private djihadists butchering locals. And who is behind Saudi Arabia, the US. Now we can cut oil exports to Syria. Aramco (US and Saudi Arabia) can assert that they will provide us oil. The depletion that Saudi Arabia worried about in 2011 is not anymore. Our source has replenished...AMEN!

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Umm....I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just saying that terrorism exists not only on a grand, political scale, but also a domestic one. I define is broadly, not specifically.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image78
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I will almost say that terrorism is an American export.
          I understood what you said. I reacted impulsively.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No, your claim that "Our silent governmental participation in domestic and international act of terrorism is a reality." is the reality.  Whether your claims are truthful is questionable; you've never been able to prove even one that I can recall.  Just make unsubstantiated claims of evil-doing by the US government.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image78
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have to prove it. Questionable, it is for you. For me, it is taken for granted. The CIA acknowledged it itself. You remember the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, they acknowledged it. One among others.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But that doesn't mean that the CIA participated in terrorism...unless you spin the definition of terrorism to include anything the CIA does. 

            Which you have done in the OP, but no one else seems to agree, do they?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              >inb4 Maxo uses the term "sheeple" coupled with the phrase "open your eyes" unironically

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'm smarter than that. I deserve more credit.

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Choir practice starts in 10 minutes, but I will give you witness now - as my responses leading up to reading your comment will attest.

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'd like to try out for soprano, if there aren't too many already.

                  Yes, I saw your replies.  Poor Max - the only agreement he ever gets is from the conspiracy theorists.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't get me wrong, I am a CONSPIRACY THEORIST and PROUD to be. I don't fantasize on my government, on the corporatocracy. If questioning what is taken for granted by the majority is to be a conspiracy theorist therefore I am. MEA CULPA.

              3. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You are telling me that the CIA admitting its overthrow of the Iranian government doesn't mean that they use terrorism to that effect? I don't follow your logic.

    2. peeples profile image88
      peeplesposted 2 years ago

      To me? Well I listen to my government. If they say someone is a terrorist, I know that they likely aren't! Example, Snowden. My government tells me he is a terrorist, my government lies about everything. So the logical answer is to listen to them and automatically assume the opposite of whatever they say.

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hold on there Peeples, take a deep breath. Governments, (not just the USG), have been lying to people since the very first one was established. Many times the lies are necessary, but too many times they are just damnable human fallacies. Such is life.

        But, take it from a genuine Curmudgeon - don't be so all-encompassing cynical. It will erode your capacity for hope. Our government, (the USG), really does and has done some damn good things for its citizens. There have been some really slimy politicians, and awful governmental actions perpetrated by weak-minded administrations - but you can't let that rob you of your optimism.

        It's like the old lawyers joke; How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? Look for his lips moving! Sounds about right - unless a good lawyer just saved you from a wrongful conviction.

        I know, I know, you heard the joke a different way, you heard it with "politician" instead of lawyer. So it just changes the caveat to; unless you are black and it's a Senator that just cast the deciding vote for the Civil Rights Act.

        See what I mean?

        ps. My apologies if I took you too seriously - it's Martini time here on the East Coast, and I am struggling to find legitimate conversation topics.

        GA

      2. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It makes sense. Now what if an independent thinker like Webster Tarpley told you that he believed that Snowden was set to divert the American public from our foreign involvement? What would you believe? Personally I just started to question myself.

     
    working