"Terrorist Threats"

[Saydrah]

I hate, hate, HATE how since 9-11, any particularly repulsive threat from a disturbed individual is called a "terrorist threat." You could argue that the individual intended to cause fear therefore he is a terrorist, but that means anyone who threatens anybody ever is a terrorist. If a parent says, "I'm going to spank you if you keep it up!" and their child is frightened-- oops, terrorist, lock 'em in Guantanamo! Yes, technically the usage is arguably correct, but it's incredibly redundant and worse yet cheapens the deaths of those killed by actual terrorists by comparing them to local crazies with no intention to follow through.

Worse yet, "terroristic threats." THAT'S NOT A WORD.

Here is a simple guide to describing a threat:

Terrorist Threat: A threat made by a terrorist or terrorist organization. Example: "The White House held a press conference today to report that a terrorist threat was received concerning a plan to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge. As a result, the Bridge will be closed to all traffic today, and three individuals were taken into custody in connection with the threat."

Credible Threat: A threat made by an individual who may well intend to carry it out. Example: "The police today acted on a credible bomb threat at an area school. Lockers were searched and a 16-year-old boy was arrested."

Threat: Any threat can be simply referred to as a threat. When in doubt, use this! Example: "I was on the phone with what seemed to be a normal customer, when all of a sudden he made a bizarre threat to shoot up the store! It's unlikely he means it since he's in a different state, but I reported it to the police anyway."

Capisce?

[Lachrymose]

Saydrah, how can you say this?

You must hate America!

*points* TERRORIST!

[Greenday]

When I read the thread title, I thought to myself "Uh, yea, I hate terrorist threats too..." Does anyone like them?

[DGoddess]

Saydrah, how can you say this?

You must hate America!

*points* TERRORIST!

It's actually spelled "Terririst" in Manda-ese.

But I see exactly what Saydrah's talking about. It's not so much the terminology but how it's used.

When a term is misused, it can make the speaker look like they are a "drama queen/king" and just seeking attention. Or they look stupider than Randy Hickey figuring out how to cross the street without being hit by a car. Or both.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. It's comparable to the Zero Tolerance policies we hear about schools having nowadays. When different situations, although a bit similar, are painted with the same brush, the colors just don't look the same no matter how you look at it.

Yet, with a Zero Tolerance policy, it's as if these people have blinders on and it's hard to get them to see otherwise. Like talking to a brick wall - only one might get a better response from the wall.

Anyway, I think I've covered it as best I can without looking like a total nitwit.

[Slytovhand]

Given the nature of this thread, I had to do a google:define:terrorist, and got (amongst a few basically similar)

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. ...

.


Thus, parents won't be terrorists to their kids...(unless the kids get into political power somewhere, the parent strongly objects but finds their objections ignored, and thus they resort to doing nasty stuff to other sections of society...)

Thus, I agree with Saydrah, but also have to add in something else (or it makes my posting redundant... and also I just have to have something to say, don't I??? )

Anyway, what annoys me is that only some groups can be labelled as terrorists, but others can't. Fanatical Muslims - fine. The occasional radical militant Christian - fine. Tamil Tigers - fine. US government - nope - NEVER!!! Not even when they're funding CIA involvement in other countries, and use said involvement to supply guns and explosives to help bring down the elected government - nope, that's not terrorism at all.. .that's bringing about freedom and democracy!

[Lace Neil Singer]

I remember someone getting their knickers in a knot on another board cuz in a thread, the Animal Liberation Front were described as "terrorists". Well, they are; they've used violence and intimidation in order to get what they want, even if they're not a political group, but animal rights activists. I think they can safely be referred to as "terrorists". :/

[Slytovhand]

Ah well then, Lace, I'd have to disagree with you there.... animal rights is a political entity. they may not be involved in 'politics', but they are 'political'.

[Lace Neil Singer]

How so? I always saw "political" as referring to "in politics"; do you have another definition and a reason for it?

[Flyndaran]

I remember someone getting their knickers in a knot on another board cuz in a thread, the Animal Liberation Front were described as "terrorists". Well, they are; they've used violence and intimidation in order to get what they want, even if they're not a political group, but animal rights activists. I think they can safely be referred to as "terrorists". :/

"Terrorist" is too loaded of a word to use in anything other than common and overly emotional terms.

Using your definition, the founding fathers of the U.S. were terrorists. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was a calculated act to foment fear.
The intentional bombing of civilian centers in Berlin during WWII would make the Allies terrorists as well.

[Saydrah]

I would call ALF radicals, not terrorists. I think the term terrorist should be reserved for groups with a consistent and organized agenda of violence and intimidation, not ones that occasionally do something violent in an attempt to make a point.

[Slytovhand]

Lace, I'm just being a bit pedantic and splitting hairs, really.

The -al ending is more for 'related to', rather than 'in' as you put it. 'Politics' is actually getting involved in the governmental processes of the country/state/ etc (or, for that matter, organisation). 'Politic-al' refers to either being involved directly, or indirectly but not actually being a part of that governmental process.

A couple of definitions:

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions.

This can be narrowly defined as all that relates to the way a society is governed. Politics is the process by which the community makes decisions

social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power; "office politics is often counterproductive"
the study of government of states and other political units
the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs
the opinion you hold with respect to political questions
the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government; "unemployment dominated the politics of the inter-war years"; "government agencies multiplied beyond the control of representative politics"

Vs:

of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power; "political opinions"

concerning or related to politics; motivated (esp. inappropriately) by political calculation; of or related to views about social relationships that involve power or authority

Eg - the IRA weren't involved in the politics of the nation because they weren't allowed recognition (that was Sinn Fein?? sp - and even then it took a while before anyone would talk to them), but they certainly had a political agenda..

Similarly, and yet opposedly, the Taliban were an elected political party, in government and had legal backing and all.. but they were kicked out, and now they are considered terrorists (and, for some really stupid reason, no-one will call them 'political' terrorists).

And Flyn, I'd have to say yes.. your founding fathers were terrorists, if they attempted to achieve a political goal through the use of violence and fear on a civilian population.

So, in saying ALF are political terrorists - they stay outside of the mainstream process of government (well, might have a party and put up candidates, in some areas, but not all), but definitely have an agenda which affects the governing of the land. And they bomb places in order to force thier views and goals onto others, by bypassing the normal system.

So... my definition and reason for it


Although.... just taking Flyn's example of WWII into account ... other than it sounds a bit distasteful, and also sounds a bit inaccurate... maybe that's just our sensibilities, and yes, they really were terrorists... (although, I see a difference between fighting a war, and trying to bypass normal political processes...)