The War On Terrorism Act

[Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù]

The world that we live in, as we tend to see on the news, Is a violent and harrowing place to live. 
Terrorism has had a massive impact on modern history. 
Therefore, as citizens of Talossa, we wish peace on all humans, no mater the creed, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion or political motivation.
With our swords of peace and our shield of kindness, we stand tall as talossans in the face of this adversity.
Therefore, Talossa declares war on terrorism, a war of peace and love to our fellow humans.
 

 

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

I think this is more like a sense of the Ziu, if we even need a sense of the Ziu to officially say "killing's bad, mm-kay?"

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

What's "terrorism"? As far as I can tell, it's a weasel word meaning killing for political reasons, carried out by people we don't like against people we do like. (Other kinds of political killing are called "war", "police action", "riot control", "retaliation" etc.) And murder is already illegal under our law.

[Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù]

Ah but how about cyber terrorism? Violent use of information to cause terror? I was possibly a bit to broad with my wording, but i feel all areas of terrorism should be addressed

[Eðo Grischun]

Jan 9, 2015 22:57:14 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

What's "terrorism"? As far as I can tell, it's a weasel word meaning killing for political reasons, carried out by people we don't like against people we do like. (Other kinds of political killing are called "war", "police action", "riot control", "retaliation" etc.) And murder is already illegal under our law.

Its funny you say this because I had this conversation today. The killings in France were not "terrorism".

If the gunmen were white and had killed not in the name of Islam, but all other factors were the same, then the media language used would be different. It would be "armed rampage", "maniac gunmen", "killing spree", etc.

But, this tragedy was carried out by people of a certain colour and religious faction so we're gonna call this one terrorism.

Nonsense.

Anyway, this should be a Sense of the Ziu and even at that I'd vote against it. What exactly does it achieve other than allow us to vent some confusion and anger? Let's not get knee-jerky. It's the exact reaction the gunmen sought.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Terrorism is an act of violence designed to impose terror on a group of people - that is to say, the killing is not just intended to murder the victims, but also to send a message of fear in order to cow someone. I'm not sure why this is a mystery, since it seems straightforward to me. The fact that some media are biased on occasion, and tend to miss this aspect of the crime when the killer is privileged in some fashion, doesn't change anything. White folks, rich folks, first world folks... anyone who kills a person or people in order to terrorize others is a terrorist.

I would support this as a Sense of the Ziu, I think.

[Lüc da Schir]

I would support it too, but it should be worded very carefully. Something like the last part of the Government's statement, maybe - if terrorism in general is too vague, perhaps it could be a declaration that we as Talossans, citizens of a melting pot nation, repudiate violence and murder and uphold diversity, peaceful coexistence and freedom of press and thought as the core values of our civility.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 10, 2015 0:53:33 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

If the gunmen were white and had killed not in the name of Islam, but all other factors were the same, then the media language used would be different. It would be "armed rampage", "maniac gunmen", "killing spree", etc.

But, this tragedy was carried out by people of a certain colour and religious faction so we're gonna call this one terrorism.

I'm really not sure why you think that. The "terrorist" label is widely applied to the Weather Underground, the Order (1980s Neo-Nazi group that killed Jewish radio host Alan Berg), Eric Rudolph (1996 Olympics and abortion clinic bomber), the Unabomber, and Timothy McVeigh. Outside the U.S., attacks on civilians by Northern Irish militant groups (PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDA, etc.), Basque separatists, Anders Breivik, etc. have all been widely referred to as terrorist acts.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jan 10, 2015 14:54:28 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 10, 2015 0:53:33 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

If the gunmen were white and had killed not in the name of Islam, but all other factors were the same, then the media language used would be different. It would be "armed rampage", "maniac gunmen", "killing spree", etc.

But, this tragedy was carried out by people of a certain colour and religious faction so we're gonna call this one terrorism.

I'm really not sure why you think that. The "terrorist" label is widely applied to the Weather Underground, the Order (1980s Neo-Nazi group that killed Jewish radio host Alan Berg), Eric Rudolph (1996 Olympics and abortion clinic bomber), the Unabomber, and Timothy McVeigh. Outside the U.S., attacks on civilians by Northern Irish militant groups (PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDA, etc.), Basque separatists, Anders Breivik, etc. have all been widely referred to as terrorist acts.

Maybe, its down to local media language. The news and papers here only use the terrorism word when events like this are perpetrated by certain groups or factions or individuals of a particular stripe.

For example, you mention Anders Breivik. Over here, he was mainly described in the news as a mass murderer, not a terrorist.

[Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù]

Anonymous... have you heard of them? Do they use guns?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jan 10, 2015 16:08:42 GMT -6 Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù said:

Anonymous... have you heard of them? Do they use guns?

I have to admit to this: while I don't condone Anonymous and their methods, they have done some actions that are at least minimally cool such as when they hacked Westboro Baptist Church.

[Françal Ian Lux]

Terrorism is a malicious act perpetrated by an individual or group of individuals to instigate TERROR from the masses. I don't understand why you're arguing the fine details of terrorism when such acts are so blatantly obvious it doesn't take an expert's opinion to confirm. Terrorism at its core doesn't care if you're black, white, or brown. It's been done by all cultures and all religions at one point or another.
The fact that we're discussing and dissecting the "true" meaning of terrorism is a prime example of why the West's political correctness is in overdrive.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

"Terrorism" is anything that the speaker wants banned.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I guess it could be, in the same way anything can be perverted. People toss around harsh and nasty words like "treachery" or "bullying" all the time, as an emotional bludgeon, quite out of keeping with the actual use of the terms. But that doesn't change the fact that those words do have a meaning, even if its application can be subjective. And just like we can still condemn bullying (for example) even if some people toss it around quite freely, we can also condemn terrorism, even if it is misused as a label on occasion, right?

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Jan 9, 2015 22:57:14 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

What's "terrorism"? As far as I can tell, it's a weasel word meaning killing for political reasons, carried out by people we don't like against people we do like. (Other kinds of political killing are called "war", "police action", "riot control", "retaliation" etc.) And murder is already illegal under our law.

Mieida sant, we agree on something. This is unprecedented!