homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Rants, Raves, Rumors!   » terrorism now and then

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: terrorism now and then
ooby
Highlie
Member # 2603

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 09:04      Profile for ooby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When people talk about terrorists and terrorism, it is often equated with Muslim extremists and people of Middle Eastern descent. It hasn't always been that way. I read a book for an english class four years ago on events/people that occurred/did things near the end of the 19th century and followed through to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. What do you think are similarities between those terrorists and the terrorists of late?

--------------------
"haven't you ever wondered if there's more to life than being really, really, rediculously good looking?"

Posts: 680 | From: South Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 09:13      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a question of definition. You could say that a bunch of disgruntled colonial types tipping crates of tea into a harbour might be construed as an act of terrorism.

This 'War on Terror' hypocrisy really gets to me. Dubya and his cronies would have the world believe that what happened on 9/11 was unique in some way - that a meaningful boundary was crossed. In terms of terrorist acts it was merely novel in its scale, not in its conception or purpose. Why is the 'War on Terror' a big joke? Because Americans have been funding terror for decades: the IRA, who have been bombing and murdering hundreds of people for a very long time used to get nearly all their funds from Irish-American organisations, until the word 'terror' left a bitter taste in their mouth. Funny how 9/11 coincided with a substantial climb down by the Provisional IRA, isn't it?

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 09:28      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IMNSHO .... (although I need to look up the references)

Nearly all wars before the 20th century were very much like "terrorist wars." That is, military, spies (sabatours), etc, routinely attacked civilian populations (aka soft targets) ... and civil wars typically put their greatest effort into destroying populations.

Wars to (modern/industrialized/non-dictatorship) nations treat people and property as valuable resources to be used after warfare ends; therefore, attacks are focused on military targets, political leadership, and combatants.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 09:41      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
IMNSHO .... (although I need to look up the references)

Nearly all wars before the 20th century were very much like "terrorist wars." That is, military, spies (sabatours), etc, routinely attacked civilian populations (aka soft targets) ... and civil wars typically put their greatest effort into destroying populations.

Wars to (modern/industrialized/non-dictatorship) nations treat people and property as valuable resources to be used after warfare ends; therefore, attacks are focused on military targets, political leadership, and combatants.

What the Hell are you talking about? Wars before the 20th century were mostly terrorist in nature? What absolute and complete bollocks! If anything, I'd say that the tactic of 'terror' didn't really appear until the 20th century - i.e., when all-out nation vs. nation war is nigh-impossible, with all the nuclear weapons floating about.

So, given your thesis, in what way were the Napoleonic wars terrorist in nature? The opposing sides would engage each other out in the open - i.e., with both armies prepared and ready - as if the time & place of battle had been agreed by both sets of generals.

The American Civil war was about decimating the opposing population? I really don't think so. I think you'll find it was all about money: that is, the plantation owners of the South fearing economic ruin in the wake of emancipation.

Have you any idea what you're talking about? Is it just me, or are you being deliberately stupid?

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gibbonboy
Geek
Member # 2426

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 10:19      Profile for Gibbonboy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ooby:
When people talk about terrorists and terrorism, it is often equated with Muslim extremists and people of Middle Eastern descent. It hasn't always been that way.

Well, according to this fruitcake, it has always been that way. Quite a rant, I could only get through the introduction. [crazy]

Something tells me that this guy has missed his meds for a long, long time.

--------------------
"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here."

Posts: 155 | From: A Very Small Hole in the Forest | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
cheezi git
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1598

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 10:22      Profile for cheezi git     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
total war is a neologism to describe an international war wherin countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war. wikipedia

good ol' beeb. trust them to come up with a very informative page about the concept of total war.

take the time to read it. it's very scary

love peace and cheez to all

--------------------
there were so many stains on the road. squashed miss mitten-shaped stains in the universe. squashed frog-shaped stains in the universe. squashed crows that tried to eat the squashed frog-shaped stains in the universe. squashed dogs...

Posts: 1929 | From: the left nostril of my cat | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flashfire
Assimilated
Member # 2616

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2004 13:03      Profile for Flashfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Total war" might be a neologism, but the concept has been around for quite some time. After all, the Vikings didn't exactly concentrate on solely military targets, now did they? Ditto with the Mongols, Goths, etc. Those were pretty obvioulsy terror tactics.

In fact, whenever there has been a discrepency in technology base between the two opposing parties in a war, terrorist and guerrilla tactics will be revisited by the group with the lower tech. The only time those tactics will not be widely used is when both opposing forces are equipped with an equal level of armament, hence you didn't see them during the Napoleonic wars, where everyone had muskets and canons.

As for the Civil War, Spungo -- Sherman's March to the Sea was an almost textbook example of a terrorist tactic. It really all comes down to semantics and perspective...

--Flash, ain't language fun?

--------------------
"No silicon heaven? That's absurd!
Where would all the calculators go?"
--Kryten, Red Dwarf
-------------------------------
My Web Comic: NSTA: Semper Vigilantis

Posts: 368 | From: State of Denial | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Groggle
Mini Geek
Member # 2360

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted April 07, 2004 06:38      Profile for Groggle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While the term "terrorism" is a relatively recent addition to our language, the acts themselves are hardly "new". If you went back to WWII, and talked to the Nazis, you would probably find that the "resistance fighters" in France were engaging in activities that would qualify as "terrorist" in our current vocabulary. Mostly it seems to be a matter of perspective - the Nazi's lost the war, the French became the "Resistance Fighters" instead of being "Terrorists". (Old saw - the victor writes the history...)

The patterns of "terrorism" have existed throughout the centuries of human civilization (of which, war has been a constant feature). Whether it is called terrorism, resistance, insurgency doesn't matter.

My thoughts? The public "War on Terrorism" is a bad joke. Terrorist organizations live in the shadows of society - charging in with guns blazing is great PR (at home), lousy tactics. Open conflict lengthens the shadows in society, and provides the shadow organizations more latitude to maneuver.

Groggle

Posts: 77 | From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ooby
Highlie
Member # 2603

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 07, 2004 09:52      Profile for ooby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is my understanding before 9/11 that terrorists were all about inciting terror. That meaning has changed, however, and terrorism is now a label applied to acts that may not neccessarily have been considered terrorism in the past.

A good example can be seen in Iraq. The insurgents oppose the occupations of their country by another country and although the press and the military try very hard to call them insurgents and it is reliably believed that terrorists are taking part in some of the violence in Iraq, the entire effort falls under the War on Terrorism cloud. Thus, freedom fighters who are justified by president are often mislabelled.

This mislabelling is then applied to other freedom fighters having nothing to do with al Quada.

--------------------
"haven't you ever wondered if there's more to life than being really, really, rediculously good looking?"

Posts: 680 | From: South Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 07, 2004 10:12      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just thinking the other day about Deep Space Nine (don't stop me, this is relevant, really!). A major character on that show, Major Kira Nerys, was a Bajoran, and Bajor had just been freed from the Cardassian occupation. They won their freedom through terrorism. (Or "freedom fighting" if you want to be politically correct, but she called herself a terrorist.) I was just wondering how the producers would have changed the backstory or plot of the show if it came out, oh say around 2002 instead of 1993.

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
óMiss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time  
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam