Announcement

Collapse

Advertising Inquiries

See more
See less

Overuse of the word "Terrorist" akin to the use of the word "Communist" in the 50's?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Overuse of the word "Terrorist" akin to the use of the word "Communist" in the 50's?

    I found this topic on reddit and thought it was an interesting question.

    "It just seems to be an oversimplification of ideals in order to more quickly turn a populace against something... Why are we all so foolish as to fall for the same ploys time and time again?"

  • #2
    And dont get me wrong, im not against calling someone a terrorist if that is what they are. It just seems like lately that the media and the gov want to put that label on almost everyone who goes against them. The wikilinks guy comes to mind. I dont agree with everything he does but I think calling him a "terrorist" is a bit much.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree the word "terrorist" has been used more and more after 9/11. I personally think its been taken out of hand and just slapped on any group of militia that is opposed the government.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think Bush was too quick to yell terrorism.

        Obama is too quick to yell anything BUT terrorism.

        Bush= war on terror
        Obama = overseas contingency operations

        Bush = terrorism
        Obama = man-caused disaster

        Bush at least had the right idea, Obama is just a fucking PC pussy.

        Comment


        • #5
          not really bush or obama to me.

          its about the labeling of anyone against the state a "terrorist".

          lets take the wiki leaks guy for example. they are calling him a terrorist in the media. what do you guys think?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by THE BOUNCER View Post

            lets take the wiki leaks guy for example. they are calling him a terrorist in the media. what do you guys think?
            what makes him a terrorist? lol

            They're just throwing that word around. Pretty much if you don't agree with the US, you're a terrorist.

            Comment


            • #7
              i think the argument for those that call him that is that some of the stuff is putting soldiers lives at risk etc..

              but if the US prides itself on doing the right thing all the time you would think that we would have nothing to hide.

              if we were doing the right thing all the time, the wiki guy would have nothing to expose.

              Comment


              • #8
                As defined by the FBI....


                "Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives."

                Comment


                • #9
                  dont think the wiki guy has anything to do with domestic. lol

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by THE BOUNCER View Post
                    dont think the wiki guy has anything to do with domestic. lol

                    They claim to have members, support and advisors in the US.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by decadecadeca View Post
                      They claim to have members, support and advisors in the US.
                      so what do you think of the wiki people then?

                      you gave the definition of the word as described by the fbi but i want to know what you think.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My opinion is that classified documents pertaining to national security or military intelligence should be off limits.

                        Divulge that information and face prosecution.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by decadecadeca View Post
                          My opinion is that classified documents pertaining to national security or military intelligence should be off limits.

                          Divulge that information and face prosecution.
                          while i do agree in a way, i also have to ask the question, how do we know it "pertains to national security" or its just something the gov is embarrassed about and doesn't want it out there? know what i mean? they can come out and say "well this is a security issue" on the news to sway the public opinion and get the public on there side, when in fact its just dirty laundry bs.

                          basically what i am saying is that there is a trend that makes anyone that question the gov and how things are done seem unpatriotic. my argument is that if you DONT question you are unpatriotic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Again according to the media (and Nancy Pelosi) if you questioned Bush you were a patriot.

                            If you question Obama you're a radical militant racist.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by decadecadeca View Post
                              Again according to the media (and Nancy Pelosi) if you questioned Bush you were a patriot.

                              If you question Obama you're a radical militant racist.
                              yea yea i get it, you are stuck on obama and bush. bush was a 2 term turd and obama will be a 1 term turd. the end.

                              stick to the subject at hand about the gov using labels and media to sway opinions.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X