[abu_rashid]

Clearly the entire concept of "terrorism" is farcical in and of itself, and is merely a strategic tactic for de-legitimising the military activities of the enemy in an asymmetric conflict, but the spill over from it in the form of these entrapment cases, to keep the fear lingering in their people takes it to a whole new level.

"In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act," the report alleges.

Out of the 494 cases related to terrorism the US has tried since 9/11, the plurality of convictions – 18% overall – are not for thwarted plots but for "material support" charges, a broad category expanded further by the 2001 Patriot Act that permits prosecutors to pursue charges with tenuous connections to a terrorist act or group.

Source: The Guardian

[quetzalcoatl]

The venerable laws of war favor the existing nation state. One reason laws of war came to be accepted (as a concept, at least) in "civilized" warfare is that unrestrained warfare can be a threat to the civil order itself. Playing the great game is one thing - when you destroy the board and all the pieces, then the possibility of either side winning is destroyed as well.

The distinction between terrorists, irregular fighters, bandits, revolutionaries, and soldiers has become blurred by propaganda. Republican congressman in the US regularly refer to fracking opponents as terrorists. It is often the case that the same group in a foreign conflict may be called freedom fighters one minute and terrorists the next, depending on changing allegiances or perceived interest. So in that sense, the concept of terrorism is, if not farcical, deeply suspect.

Yet there is still such a thing as barbarism. At least let us recognize disgusting and vile acts that are nothing more than the pornography of violence; the filming of such acts is the work of a deeply depraved culture. If you propose to kill prisoners, at least give them a quick bullet to the head.

[Kapanda]

It's a long known fact, OP.

Propaganda is as old as humanity itself.

For example, this notion that we should be particularly worried in the streets of London because of a surge of a few sadists in Syria is beyond laughable: it's front page laughable. But here we are, lapping it all up anyway.

What always comes to mind, however, is that it is a relative blessing that our biggest foreign threat is "terrorism". Terrorism is never going to cause the deaths of millions of people, and it is highly unlikely (though feasible) that it will cause a whole city to be wiped out in one sitting. The period of time when these things may have happened were not all that long ago. Compared to that, I'll take being under threat of "terrorism" any day of the week.

[neopagan]

Clearly the entire concept of "terrorism" is farcical in and of itself, and is merely a strategic tactic for de-legitimising the military activities of the enemy in an asymmetric conflict

First of all, the concept of terrorism is not a farce. It is used in an attempt create fear, or to gain revenge for some perceived and usually spurious wrong. It is not the concept you are talking about, but you expect everyone to interpret your sentences without constructing them properly.

There is nothing farcical about the use of the term terrorism by Western governments and media. It is a carefully considered policy not to offend Muslims who may not feel Western policies are all that bad. The fault with this use of the term is that an enemy cannot be defeated if you are afraid to name him merely because you might offend his friends.

In some ways ISIS undermined this situation and the word Islamic began to appear in the media and announcements by politicians. They are busy rewording again with terms like militant and extremist to avoid saying MUSLIM FANATIC.

Mostly, the West has been fairly moderate in its response to Muslim inspired atrocities over the last 15 years. The question is whether or not future generations will be this cautious with the use of firepower.

[Kapanda]

That is most definitely not the case, neopagan. The use of the term has been irresponsibly applied in order to uphold shaky foreign policy ventures. Islamic extremism is still mentioned as an enemy to be defeated to this day by Western leaders.

But, why were we in Iraq for 10 years again? Coz there are dogone tarr'ists in there, and they wana take away yer freedom! It worked wonders! In 2004, people voted for Bush simply because it is wrong to vote against your President at a time of war.

This is true, so much so that the use of the term has now been adopted by other nations around the world to identify enemies of the status quo. Terrorists incited riots in Bahrain and Turkey, and terrorists brought down Gaddafi's regime. When the use of the term by these countries' leaders is compared with the use of the term by Western leaders, you realise that there is no real distinction between the use of the terms. It is a term used to promote state interests.

[ThereBeDragons]

The definition of terrorism, as far as I can tell, is any sort of non-pointless violence that isn't war between two states, with the sole exception of armed resistance against armed, uniformed members of an occupying military. Sure, you can condemn it across the board if you're a committed pacifist, but other than that, it just looks hypocritical.

[Far-Right Sage]

The definition of terrorism, as far as I can tell, is any sort of non-pointless violence that isn't war between two states, with the sole exception of armed resistance against armed, uniformed members of an occupying military.

I can assure you the latter is lumped into the terrorism category as well today, depending upon which uniformed men we are referring to.

[wat0n]

"In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act," the report alleges.

Out of the 494 cases related to terrorism the US has tried since 9/11, the plurality of convictions – 18% overall – are not for thwarted plots but for "material support" charges, a broad category expanded further by the 2001 Patriot Act that permits prosecutors to pursue charges with tenuous connections to a terrorist act or group.

I see nothing wrong in detecting people who may be looking for arms or payment for committing terrorist acts. If anything, it's smart to detect those with such a tendency early on.

[fuser]

Well from what I know terrorism is basically a tactics through which a non state actor tries to instill enough fear (terror) into a state so that latter conforms to the formers political goal. Of course the problem arises with the negative connotaion of the word, so basically I divide terrorism in two categories, revolutionary terrorism (which can be good not always though) and others, which are always bad.

[Mircea]

The definition of terrorism, as far as I can tell, is any sort of non-pointless violence that isn't war between two states, with the sole exception of armed resistance against armed, uniformed members of an occupying military. Sure, you can condemn it across the board if you're a committed pacifist, but other than that, it just looks hypocritical.

The definition of terrorism and terrorist group has changed over time, and it depends on who is in power.

Criminals ought to be classified a terrorists and treated as such.

Well from what I know terrorism is basically a tactics through which a non state actor tries to instill enough fear (terror) into a state so that latter conforms to the formers political goal. Of course the problem arises with the negative connotaion of the word, so basically I divide terrorism in two categories, revolutionary terrorism (which can be good not always though) and others, which are always bad.

Sorry, but a State Actor can be a terrorist and engage in terrorism.

The Imperial Roman Catholic Church did.

The US is a terrorist and engages in terrorism. So are/were many 1st World former-Colonial Powers.

What is the real issue with terrorism?

The real issue is that government does not like to look incompetent and bumbling in the eyes of The People; government never likes to be embarrassed; government never likes to appear as though they are not in total control; and so on.

You cannot permit governments to define who is or isn't a terrorist.

Look at the MEK. US government calls them terrorists, but then 30 years later, hires these "terrorists" to interrogate Iraqi EPWs.

[abu_rashid]

The word terrorism is really a redundant word.

It serves absolutely no purpose other than if we consider it from a propaganda POV to de-legitimise the enemy.

All violence strikes terror into the hearts of the victims, regardless of the political or ideological motives behind it.

Even if it did have a meaningful use previously, the West's "war on terror" has eroded its usefulness significantly over the past decade or two.

[Dagoth Ur]

Terrorism is still a real tactic even if the term "terrorist" is way overused.

[magnocrat]

Terrorism is cruelty for the purpose of propoganda. As pointed out it is used by enemies of the status quo. I agree with the condemnation of barbarism cruelty for its own sake.
Interestingly the only animals we can accuse of barbarism are man( the worst exponent) and domestic cats who we feed almost as well as we feed ourselves.
We all want to be morally upright beings, but is it in our nature.
' Human evil is a natural phenomenon, and some level of predatory violence is innate in us.'
I quote the famous neuroscientist and well known atheist Sam Harris.
Steven Pinker also makes it clear in 'The Blank Slate' we carry a large evolutionary baggage.