Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybe im nit-picking but...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maybe im nit-picking but...

    If a group of men, whose purpose is to machine gun down as many innocent people as possible, will the media call them terrorist? If you answered yes you are wrong. See below.....

    MUMBAI, India – Police in India released the names of nine suspected Islamic militants killed during the three-day siege of Mumbai and said investigators had uncovered new details about them — including their hometowns in Pakistan.

    The allegations appeared to bolster India's claims that all the attackers were from Pakistan.

    Hope we can keep this civil and not too political but isnt there something wrong here?

    The 2 differant definations from the dictionary.

    mil⋅i⋅tant   /ˈmɪlɪtənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mil-i-tuhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation

    –adjective 1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
    2. engaged in warfare; fighting.
    –noun 3. a militant person.
    4. a person engaged in warfare or combat

    ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

    –noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
    2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

    phsstt!

  • #2
    Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    The allegations appeared to bolster India's claims that all the attackers were from Pakistan.
    You're just over-reading it. Attackers can be synonymous with terrorists in many contexts. I'm sure others whom we regard as terrorists have also been termed such things as - assailants, bombers, gunmen, murderers, etc.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by SQUACKEE
      The allegations appeared to bolster India's claims that all the attackers were from Pakistan.
      You're just over-reading it. Attackers can be synonymous with terrorists in many contexts. I'm sure others whom we regard as terrorists have also been termed such things as - assailants, bombers, gunmen, murderers, etc.
      What would you call the dudes with the machine guns in India?
      phsstt!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

        Originally posted by SQUACKEE
        What would you call the dudes with the machine guns in India?
        gunmen - it's a neutral term, which is always best in reportage. Whether they are 'terrorists' depends on which side you're on in most cases.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 510873.stm

          BBC used the term gunmen for the Iran siege in the 80's.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

            Originally posted by Marlow
            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
            What would you call the dudes with the machine guns in India?
            gunmen - it's a neutral term, which is always best in reportage. Whether they are 'terrorists' depends on which side you're on in most cases.

            are 'terrorists' depends on which side you're on in most cases,

            What side were the innocent people who were butchered on? The answer is you dont know and neither do the terrorists. The "gunman's" real goal was to create terror, and thats what they did.

            In a bank robbery you have gunman but they are not terrorists.


            If they managed to blow up a 100,000 people you could not call them gunman, i guess you would call them bombers. What you are saying is the word terrorism not only doesnt exist but should never be used?
            phsstt!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
              What you are saying is the word terrorism not only doesnt exist but should never be used?
              I think he is saying it is subjective and often clouds the issue with regard to solving the problem. Terrorists obviously do exist, and these guys fit the description. There are other ways to describe them too.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

                Originally posted by Daisy
                Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                What you are saying is the word terrorism not only doesnt exist but should never be used?
                I think he is saying it is subjective and often clouds the issue with regard to solving the problem. Terrorists obviously do exist, and these guys fit the description. There are other ways to describe them too.
                So......word terrorism not only doesnt exist but should never be used?

                I would think the people who's goal is to inflict terror would be quite disappointed with the media's enemic description of their activities.

                Anyway, thanx for you post Daisy, i wanted to know the explanation and appreciate your thoughts.
                phsstt!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

                  Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                  I would think the people who's goal is to inflict terror would be quite disappointed with the media's enemic description of their activities.
                  See, now you get it. Don't give in to their demands. Within reason don't change your routines due to their actions. Don't give them undue attention.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    We can parse semantics all day but I think, like pornography, we all know terrorism when we see it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

                      Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                      What side were the innocent people who were butchered on? The answer is you dont know and neither do the terrorists. The "gunman's" real goal was to create terror, and thats what they did.
                      What would you say about a group of men who detonate a nuclear device in a city, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, with the sole purpose of terrorizing their nation into surrender to a superior military might?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Maybe im nit-picking but...

                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                        What side were the innocent people who were butchered on? The answer is you dont know and neither do the terrorists. The "gunman's" real goal was to create terror, and thats what they did.
                        What would you say about a group of men who detonate a nuclear device in a city, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, with the sole purpose of terrorizing their nation into surrender to a superior military might?
                        Good point, i think some would argue those actions saved millions of Japanese and American lives and were carried out to end a war someone else started. Dont know if thats true but it would be hard to make a reasonable case the actions in India were carried out to save lives.

                        BTW- I dont think thats the only reason the U.S. dropped the big ones. . war is very messy, thats for sure.
                        phsstt!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lonewolf
                          We can parse semantics all day but I think, like pornography, we all know terrorism when we see it.
                          Of the two, I'll take pornography every time :wink: .
                          "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                          by Thomas Henry Huxley

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pego
                            Originally posted by lonewolf
                            We can parse semantics all day but I think, like pornography, we all know terrorism when we see it.
                            Of the two, I'll take pornography every time :wink: .
                            On my wedding night my wife accused me of both! End of thread? :P
                            phsstt!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                              Originally posted by Pego
                              Originally posted by lonewolf
                              We can parse semantics all day but I think, like pornography, we all know terrorism when we see it.
                              Of the two, I'll take pornography every time :wink: .
                              On my wedding night my wife accused me of both! End of thread? :P
                              If I understand this correctly, we have a new definition of terrorism.

                              "Failure to meet expectations, even with the help of pornography."

                              Have I just saved this thread :lol: ?
                              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                              by Thomas Henry Huxley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X