Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (1976)	7/20/2005 5:08:09 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 541743

Whoops- I see you asked the same question. Obviously, it must be a good one. :)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (1976)	7/20/2005 5:49:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541743

Terrorism can be an attempt to intimidate, either for money or to get political power, or to achieve some other end. If it is a protest it has to be in response to something. Terrorism doesn't have to be a response to anything. Terrorism is largely done for intimidation effect, but intimidation doesn't have to involve terrorism. You can threaten someone directly, or through hints without fitting under any standard definition of terrorism. (I would use "causing terror" as a definition. Otherwise you have to say hurricanes and earthquakes where terrorism.) If you kill or injure civilians in order to terrorize other people in to giving you what you want (money, power, political change) than you could be considered to have committed terrorism. The exact boundaries might be fuzzy but not so fuzzy as to invalidate the point. I tried to think about historical examples of systematic terrorist violence with no political rationale and can't come up with any. "Not a protest", does not equal "no political rationale". Also "terrorism" doesn't equal "historical examples of systematic terrorist violence". Terrorism can be non-systematic. And you can talk about terrorism that hasn't happened yet and thus is not historical. If your talking about the meaning of the word hypothetical terrorism is as relevant as historical terrorism. Tim

To: Dale Baker who wrote (1976)	7/20/2005 6:10:29 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541743

What would examples be of terrorism with no intent to protest? It seems to me that, when protest turns to violence, particularly terrorism-type violence which targets those who aren't even the perpetrators of the grievance, the kernel of protest, while it still may be hiding in there somewhere, has been so overcome by something else that it is all but lost. The something else may be vengeance or plunder or war or whatever, but protest is no longer what it's about. terrorist violence with no political rationale I think it's important to distinguish between the grievance and the protest, which is the expression of the grievance. Just because the political rationale is there doesn't mean that what's happening is a protest. The grievance that triggered the protest has morphed into something else, like terrorism.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (1976)	7/20/2005 6:50:53 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 541743

of systematic terrorist violence with no political rationale Terrorism is just as often used to support the status quo as to protest. Myanmar (Burma) is a good example. You don't see isolated terrorists becaue such actions are dealt with as criminal events and are effectively dealt with without spreading the number of victims. TP