Are we going mad about the issue of 'terrorism?'

[gmbteach]

This came across my path today and it got me to thinking that we may be going overboard with defining what a 'terrorist' is.

Ned Kelly, an Australian Outlaw, was just that, an outlaw! Was he a terrorist? In school, as part of English, we discuss whether or not Ned Kelly was a hero or villain.

Why then, shouldn't a museum be built about him?

What do you think about the descendent's of the police officer he murdered calling him a terrorist?

Here is the article that sparked this thought:

Ned Kelly's home restoration a controversy

So what exactly defines a terrorist? Are some of our beloved and, at times, admired, villains of the past 'terrorists'?

I think we are taking the idea of terrorism too far. What do you think?

 

[Valjean]

I thought a terrorist was someone using intimidation of the general public to achieve political ends.

 

[bigfield]

Terrorist and terrorism have become nebulous terms..

 Terrorism

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

By that broadest sense, the Kelly Gang were not terrorists as their aims were neither political, religious, nor ideological and they did not use violence indiscriminately. They were merely bandits.

Other definitions of terrorism impose additional criteria.

 Definitions of terrorism

1. It is the use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change.
2. It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments.
3. It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.
4. It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).

#2 Precludes state actions such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, which were acts of indiscriminate violence in order to achieve a political aim.


"Terrorist" has also become a buzzword in modern politics, intended to foster fear in the populace and to lend support to "tough" security policies. For a recent Australian example, Joe Hockey labelled the 2014 Lindt cafe siege a terrorist attack despite evidence that was simply deranged; Hockey's claim was contradicted by several experts.


On a related note, I don't understand why people admire Ned Kelly. I read a very flattering account of his life when I was a boy and he still came across as a common bandit whose only distinction was his characteristic armour. He was no Robin Hood; he thieved and murdered for his own profit.

 

[gmbteach]

Glad we have a definition of terrorism. My question now would be, are we using the term indiscriminately to describe anyone who is a non-conformist? And how many more people are we going to label as terrorists from history?

Are we poised to rewrite the history books?

 

[bigfield]

Glad we have a definition of terrorism. My question now would be, are we using the term indiscriminately to describe anyone who is a non-conformist? And how many more people are we going to label as terrorists from history?

Are we poised to rewrite the history books?

From that Yahoo article:

Descendants of a police officer killed by Kelly have spoken out saying that it glorifies a murderer and a terrorist.

It's just the worthless opinion of some nobodies. This doesn't set a precedent for rewriting history, even for a single individual.

My question now would be, are we using the term indiscriminately to describe anyone who is a non-conformist?

Based on the opinion of "descendants of a police officer killed by Kelly"? I doubt it. Firstly, labelling Ned Kelly a terrorist probably won't catch on with the general public, and definitely not within academia. Secondly, Ned Kelly is not representative of non-conformists.


On a related note: Rewriting history is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes the history books are factually incorrect and need to be corrected. History is rewritten all the time as new information comes to light (including declassified documents) and historians provide better analyses.

 

[Valjean]

Glad we have a definition of terrorism. My question now would be, are we using the term indiscriminately to describe anyone who is a non-conformist? And how many more people are we going to label as terrorists from history?

Are we poised to rewrite the history books?

No -- those using the term for every violent outburst have no sense of history. Anything over a few years old is a complete blank.

 

[gmbteach]

Glad we have a definition of terrorism. My question now would be, are we using the term indiscriminately to describe anyone who is a non-conformist? And how many more people are we going to label as terrorists from history?

Are we poised to rewrite the history books?

No -- those using the term for every violent outburst have no sense of history. Anything over a few years old is a complete blank.

That is a good point. However, as we seem to be aware of the number of idiotic people in the world, is it possible?

 

[Valjean]

Alas, only a few of us seem to see the Big Picture and the unintended consequences of past actions.
Without a historical perspective we're doomed to repeat the same blunders every couple of generations (or less).

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the US of A, which political party wants the public to be apeshit paranoid about the "tearists" (W's adorable pronunciation) so that voters ignore their own long-term interests? In the 50s, 60s, 70s, it was the Communist threat. The gays were the big deal until the country got its pulse under control. Now the tearists are the pony to ride.