Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The label "terrorist organization" overused?

Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

11 Dec 2009, 5:26 pm

Do you believe that the label "terrorist organization" is overused?

Firstly, the label generates stereotypes that are not true of all "terror organizations" such as:
-Every member in the organization is a cold-blooded monster that loves murdering and killing and wants to commit genocide
-There is absolutely no room for negogiations since there is nothing the other party can do to stop the terror acts
-The terrorists commit terror acts because "its just the nature of the organization"

Secondly, no military in the world is perfect and there have been many conventional armies that have commited many war crimes, why single out terrorism?
I just think that by labeling an organization as "terrorist" you are judging them for that particular fault and you turn a blind eye to other war crimes (such as the US turning a blind eye on Israeli war crimes and being so uptight about Palestinian/Arab terrorism as shown in the 2nd lebanon war and gaza war.)



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

11 Dec 2009, 7:30 pm

Terrorist organizations intend to inspire fear to effect political change by targeting civilian populations with violence. Conventional state military forces typically don't, and when they do, they're considered war crimes. Terrorist organizations typically believe they lack sufficient non-violent means to make their political agenda heard.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

13 Dec 2009, 12:22 am

Fear tactic.

Al-Qaeda doesn't even exist. It's a proven CIA term created to lump all perceived terror threats into. If Al-Qaeda really was a big a network as the government says it is, we'd be in big trouble.

For a man in a cave somewhere that nobody's seen since 9/11, one man sure has a very organized and powerful network, right?



TitusLucretiusCarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 518

13 Dec 2009, 10:03 am

proven where? it's a pretty big step from the CIA overplaying the threat, size or reach of Al-Qaeda to push an agenda to drawing the conclusion that this is direct evidence that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. Too big a step for me.

So far as I understand it Al-Qaeda is huge, Bin Laden is important because each particular section is heavily compartmentalised with the only means of coordiantion/communication being to go through Bin Laden or his immediate Lieutenants. Osama is the man with the connections and pull with Saudi Intelligence and the country's Princes, take him out and you seriously damage the organisation's capacity to function, even fatally so.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

13 Dec 2009, 11:25 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Terrorist organizations intend to inspire fear to effect political change by targeting civilian populations with violence. Conventional state military forces typically don't, and when they do, they're considered war crimes. Terrorist organizations typically believe they lack sufficient non-violent means to make their political agenda heard.


Are you counting direct action from state military forces or will you include intelligence/military related sponsership? Because, if you accept the later, then...

- 1985 Beirut car bombing
- Contra operations in Sandinista-governed Nicaragua of the 1980s
- CIA payrolling of Pinochet
- Operation Condor

... all seem to discredit your thesis.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

13 Dec 2009, 11:40 am

TitusLucretiusCarus wrote:
proven where? it's a pretty big step from the CIA overplaying the threat, size or reach of Al-Qaeda to push an agenda to drawing the conclusion that this is direct evidence that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. Too big a step for me.

So far as I understand it Al-Qaeda is huge, Bin Laden is important because each particular section is heavily compartmentalised with the only means of coordiantion/communication being to go through Bin Laden or his immediate Lieutenants. Osama is the man with the connections and pull with Saudi Intelligence and the country's Princes, take him out and you seriously damage the organisation's capacity to function, even fatally so.


CIA in their own documents (early on) admitted that Al-Qaeda was a term they had created to lump terror threats into. Let's face it, they really don't know jack about who is working for who else, if they are part of a larger organization or just helping out "brothers" with a similar cause.

There is no Al-Qaeda terror network. But if the CIA tried to explain the way all the groups out there operate, people would get lost in the shuffle of names, so they find it easier (and more opportunistic for government funding) to lump them into one huge boogieman that people will fear.



TitusLucretiusCarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 518

13 Dec 2009, 12:53 pm

Quote:
CIA in their own documents (early on) admitted that Al-Qaeda was a term they had created to lump terror threats into. Let's face it, they really don't know jack about who is working for who else, if they are part of a larger organization or just helping out "brothers" with a similar cause.

There is no Al-Qaeda terror network. But if the CIA tried to explain the way all the groups out there operate, people would get lost in the shuffle of names, so they find it easier (and more opportunistic for government funding) to lump them into one huge boogieman that people will fear.


please cite your source (specific document(s))

if there is no Al-qaeda (which I believe is Arabic for 'the base') then I suppose you will next tell me that the CIA planned and executed 9-11, the numerous bombings in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole and assign responsibility for the attack on Pearl Harbour with equally sound reasoning and equally reliable evidence.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

13 Dec 2009, 6:26 pm

TitusLucretiusCarus wrote:
Quote:
CIA in their own documents (early on) admitted that Al-Qaeda was a term they had created to lump terror threats into. Let's face it, they really don't know jack about who is working for who else, if they are part of a larger organization or just helping out "brothers" with a similar cause.

There is no Al-Qaeda terror network. But if the CIA tried to explain the way all the groups out there operate, people would get lost in the shuffle of names, so they find it easier (and more opportunistic for government funding) to lump them into one huge boogieman that people will fear.


please cite your source (specific document(s))


Sorry. Don't have time to dig through archives to find what you want.

The label of "Al Qaeda" is applied to dozens of groups regardless of if any actual connection or overall organization can be proven. Maybe you should ask the CIA to document how all of these terrorists are all part of one huge common network (which they aren't and I'd be amazed if any CIA agent would be dumb enough to say so).



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

19 Dec 2009, 8:16 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
TitusLucretiusCarus wrote:
Quote:
CIA in their own documents (early on) admitted that Al-Qaeda was a term they had created to lump terror threats into. Let's face it, they really don't know jack about who is working for who else, if they are part of a larger organization or just helping out "brothers" with a similar cause.

There is no Al-Qaeda terror network. But if the CIA tried to explain the way all the groups out there operate, people would get lost in the shuffle of names, so they find it easier (and more opportunistic for government funding) to lump them into one huge boogieman that people will fear.


please cite your source (specific document(s))


Sorry. Don't have time to dig through archives to find what you want.

The label of "Al Qaeda" is applied to dozens of groups regardless of if any actual connection or overall organization can be proven. Maybe you should ask the CIA to document how all of these terrorists are all part of one huge common network (which they aren't and I'd be amazed if any CIA agent would be dumb enough to say so).


Al Qaeda means "The base" in arabic, with the same meaning the word has in english. It a blanket term used to simplify the muslim partisan and extremist groups down to a form dumb enough to scare the western population in the news, and thereby justify any military action taken the the middle east.



radicalcrandy
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9

23 Dec 2009, 5:02 am

Of course terrorism is over used. I know that the Oath Keepers have been labled as potential terrorists by the White House here in America. Oath Keepers consist of police, veterans, active military, etc. Actually, several simple groups have been declared potential terrorist here in America that in no way resemble it. Based on what I know they consider to be potential terrorists here my guess is that terrorist organizations over seas may not actually be terrorist cells at all. It's tough to say. For all we know there really is that large of a terrorist threat, but it's doubtful.