Graney said:
Define your terms. Terrorism to me, is a label the state places whenever any non-state based group performs any violent action.
Assasinating political leaders is terrorism. Militias fighting the american military in Iraq are terrorists. Certainly if a U.S. military installation was attacked by a non-state based group, it would be labelled terrorism. All sorts of forms of protest are labelled terrorism. Greenpeace and similar groups have been labelled by some as terrorism, and under the present loose definition it's not an unreasonable label.
If you wish to define terrorism strictly as direct violence against civilians, then that's not something I support.
Terrorism seems to me to be a bullshit term invented by the state to control and suppress any action against the state. Make people hate and fear those who seek to liberate them. It's a hugely emotive and manipulating label, that acts to obscure the real, moral and dignified ideals some "terrorist" groups may hold.
Mmm yes, indeed, the government sure did a great job of making me hate those lovely, good-intentioned freedom fighters. If it wasn't for the government's constant
propaganda,
"These men detonated bombs in Bali to wage a holy war against those who do not believe in their choice of life, subsequently murdering 202 innocent people," I think I'd probs sympathise with them. All they really wanted was my - and the people in that restaurant's - liberation! It's so clear now, thanks! I mean because we all have to liberated from our Non-Islamist worldviews, they have to show us the right way, thank god for people like those three.
Terrorism
IS a bullshit term. Thank you! The government shouldn't label these men as "terrorists", there should be some other label - sorry,
propaganda - which encapsulates the goals of the men, where they try to incite fear and
terror in the hearts of people because of their beliefs in an invisible God. Oh wait...