Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OK, how about instead of "Islamic Terrorism" (Original Post) maxrandb Feb 2015 OP
I like murderous thugs...period randys1 Feb 2015 #1
"Murderous criminals" is what Obama called them, using "ugly lies". 100% correct. Not complex. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #4
Criminal is better than thug, thug has racist connotations, I stand corrected. randys1 Feb 2015 #12
Thank you, I was reluctant to point that out. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #13
Never be with me, I love learning and being corrected when I am wrong randys1 Feb 2015 #16
ISIS are not criminals. AngryAmish Feb 2015 #17
What does no rules for us mean? randys1 Feb 2015 #18
We take them as prisoners. AngryAmish Feb 2015 #19
Thank goodness you are not in charge. randys1 Feb 2015 #20
Then what is the point of having these war crimes, Geneva Convention treaties? AngryAmish Feb 2015 #22
discard the word "terrorism" Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #2
Wrong because terrorism is a 'how', not a 'who' and a 'why'. on point Feb 2015 #3
give me a definition then Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #5
Here ya go: leftynyc Feb 2015 #10
yep that's it Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #11
"terrorism" is a horrible word, and it is (ab)used horribly. unblock Feb 2015 #7
aww Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #8
fundamentalist extremism uppityperson Feb 2015 #6
Now THAT is the best one! annabanana Feb 2015 #9
^^ This. n/t winter is coming Feb 2015 #14
Calling it "Islamic terrorism" is calling it "religious terrorism." Iggo Feb 2015 #15
I like it Android3.14 Feb 2015 #21

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
4. "Murderous criminals" is what Obama called them, using "ugly lies". 100% correct. Not complex.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:52 PM
Feb 2015

Now that this is all cleared up I am sure the war effort will be much better??

What a ridiculous state the trolling American media has descended into.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
17. ISIS are not criminals.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 07:49 PM
Feb 2015

What they do is 100% legal in their system. In fact they ARE law enforcement.

War criminals? No. They are not signatories to any war crime treaty.

As far as ISIS, there are no legal protections, like pirates. They should be hung on site or capture.

A law is a mutual thing. No rules for them? Fine. No rules for us.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
19. We take them as prisoners.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:16 PM
Feb 2015

If they recant, away they go. If no, they get killed. Plata o plomo, as they say.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
22. Then what is the point of having these war crimes, Geneva Convention treaties?
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:38 PM
Feb 2015

Honestly, what is in it for us? Other than guatanteed good treatment for our soldiers?

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
2. discard the word "terrorism"
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:47 PM
Feb 2015

there's no way to use that word in honest discussion, for two reasons:

1) it has no fixed meaning
2) it's an emotional trigger word designed to suppress rational thought

on point

(2,506 posts)
3. Wrong because terrorism is a 'how', not a 'who' and a 'why'.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:52 PM
Feb 2015

Understanding the latter two i9n perhaps getting to a change in the how

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
10. Here ya go:
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 04:43 PM
Feb 2015

noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

unblock

(52,230 posts)
7. "terrorism" is a horrible word, and it is (ab)used horribly.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 04:23 PM
Feb 2015

the main concept behind the word is that the perpetrators are trying to terrorize, i.e., scare, us.

which in turn implies that we can be scared, which in turn encourages them to try.

we're the land of the free and the home of the brave, dammit, this crap can't frighten us.

in fact, it's the idiots running around screaming "terrorism" who are scaring us. a real statesman would say something like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", but then, goodness, republicans can't go THERE....


more objectively, it should be called asymmetric warfare, which of course was perfectly legitimate when we used comparable tactics taking pot shots against the regimented, rank-and-file formations the british and then fleeing into the woods during the american revolution.

but this, of course, would allow that the perpetrators are not simple and pure evil, and again, goodness, we can't solve complex world problems by allowing for any complexity in our discourse....

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
8. aww
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 04:30 PM
Feb 2015

I wanted to toy with this a bit before the big reveal but you beat me to it!

When you reason the term out to its logical conclusion, people trying to make you afraid of "terrorism" are practically by definition "terrorists". They are trying to cause fear to achieve political ends, meaning the very (non-sarcastic/ironic) invocation of the term makes the speaker a "terrorist"!

Most people, of course, don't reason it all the way through, since the invocation of a fear stimulus is a primary method of shutting down rational thought. Or, to put it another way, "fear is the mind killer".

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OK, how about instead of ...