Is George Bush a terrorist?

[komencanto]

Ok, I've got this as my debating topic, and I have to argue that he isn't. I think it is ultimately a battle of semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Definitions_of_Terrorism , http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm), so I have no idea how I'm going to make a debate out of it! What should I do? Argue what the word SHOULD mean :-/
There is almost no consensus, and we'll both want to pick the definition that suits us, so we'll probably just end up arguing looking in different directions!
Perhaps I should pick the definition I like and run with it, pointing out that he doesn't fit the definition of... say Binyamin Netanyahu, who writes about terrorism.
Can I say that talking about terrorism in that way dilutes the meaning of the word?
And what do you think, is he or isn't he?

[zenith-nadir]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=11&y=17) defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

So my question is how does George W systematically use terror as a means of coercion?

[geni]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So my question is how does George W systematically use terror as a means of coercion?

Some of his supports would aruge that that is excatly what he did with lybia

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=11&y=17) defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

So my question is how does George W systematically use terror as a means of coercion?

Ever hear of gunship diplomacy?

[EGarrett]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=11&y=17) defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

So my question is how does George W systematically use terror as a means of coercion?

I thought definitions weren't supposed to repeat terms in the word itself?

Oh well, the dictionary is considered the authority, so you could say that George W. is a terrorist, and so are you and I. Because, by that definition everyone who's ever swung a hand at a fly is a terrorist. Thus, if you're willing to question a dictionary, I would actually deem that definition too broad to be useful.

Isn't the goal to find a definition that includes the groups who's actions pretty much coined the term, and people like Timothy McVeigh, without including everyone else? Once you find that definition then you can apply it to Bush.

I prefer "the use of violence and intimidation to influence political policy."

Seems to include Al Qaeda quite well...while not catching the average person or schoolyard bully either. Likewise, simply assassinating a leader isn't necessarily terrorism. I think the threat of further violence is required to cause a country to change it's ways is needed also.

Does that apply to Bush? He's using the military to change Iraq's policy. He forcefully removed a leader. But he's attempting to
"control" Iraq through a new government instead of threatening to kill the people if they don't accept democracy.

Tough question overall...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by komencanto
Ok, I've got this as my debating topic, and I have to argue that he isn't. I think it is ultimately a battle of semantics

Until you win that semantic battle, your debate topic has no meaning. You'll get a lot of responses though.

In my view, it is counterproductive to use 'terrorism' in anything other than a political debate*. Certainly not in a logical debate. Logic requires you objectify it. Doing so may not only make Bush a terrorist, but the Pope as well. Robin Williams and the Olsen twins, too.

*Edit: political debates are, in and of themselves, counterproductive to truth.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by EGarrett
I thought definitions weren't supposed to repeat terms in the word itself?Oh well, the dictionary is considered the authority, so you could say that George W. is a terrorist, and so are you and I. Because, that definition everyone who's ever swung a hand at a fly is a terrorist.Huh? By swatting flies I am not systematically using terror as a means of coercion.

Originally posted by EGarrett
I would actually deem that definition too broad to be useful. Isn't the goal to find a definition that includes the groups who's actions pretty much coined the term, without including everyone else? The definition is quite clear, if one uses systematic terror to coerce, then one can be defined as a terrorist.

Originally posted by EGarrett
Once you find that definition then you can apply it to Bush. I prefer "the use of violence and intimidation to influence political policy."Sounds like you are already predisposed to label Bush a terrorist regardless of any official definition... ;)

Originally posted by EGarrett
I think the threat of further violence is required to cause a country to change it's ways is needed also. Does that apply to Bush? He's using the military to change Iraq's policy. He forcefully removed a leader. But he's attempting to "control" Iraq through a new government instead of threatening to kill the people if they don't accept democracy.I hear what you are saying, Bush used "terrorism" to remove Saddam. hehehe...have you met a_u_p yet?

[c0rbin]

If you had to choose one ([i]had[/] to choose one), who would you have over to dinner at your house: a terrorist or a gunship diplomat?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by EGarrett

Oh well, the dictionary is considered the authority, so you could say that George W. is a terrorist, and so are you and I. Because, by that definition everyone who's ever swung a hand at a fly is a terrorist. Thus, if you're willing to question a dictionary, I would actually deem that definition too broad to be useful.

Isn't the goal to find a definition that includes the groups who's actions pretty much coined the term, and people like Timothy McVeigh, without including everyone else? Once you find that definition then you can apply it to Bush.

I prefer "the use of violence and intimidation to influence political policy."
I don't think that's very good either. It includes both any war and any resistance movement, since they both using force and intimidation to influence policy. I prefer: "deliberate attack against civilians for the a political purpose" which I think is pretty close to the FBI definition, except that they include attacks that carries high civilian cassulties as well, but I think that gets to vague. The only problem with this definition is, IMO, that we could disagree on who is a civilian.

[komencanto]

Another suggestion is 'A war crime committed during peace'
Sounds pretty good...

[EGarrett]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Huh? By swatting flies I am not systematically using terror as a means of coercion.

I didn't say swat flies...I said swung a hand at a fly. You know, to get it to stop buzzing around your face? You're using the fly's fear of death to coerce it into leaving the area of your head. That fits the dictionary definition of terrorism...especially because it doesn't specify that human beings must be the ones coerced.

The definition is quite clear, if one uses systematic terror to coerce, then one can be defined as a terrorist.

Then basically all of us can be defined. If it covers everyone, is it really a useful definition?

Sounds like you are already predisposed to label Bush a terrorist regardless of any official definition... ;)

Um, actually I don't think he is.

I hear what you are saying, Bush used "terrorism" to remove Saddam. hehehe...have you met a_u_p yet? [/B]

Um...no. I said what I said. I don't consider Bush a terrorist because he's not seeking to intimidate anyone. He forcefully removed the previous leaders of Iraq through organized war, and now he's seeking to keep control by allowing the people to govern themselves.

[Frostbite]

How about we deal with the real terrorists (those who chop off people's heads on live television and who we don't have to debate wether they are terrorists or not) and we'll deal with ol' Dubya then.

[Evolver]

Kudos to a letter in today's Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2004/05/14/check_out_the_dictionary/)

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."

Does this sound familiar?

[RandFan]

Evolver,

Great example of how a word can be misapplied or misused. A good object lesson for those who would like to see why the actual usage or definition of a word is important and how words can alone can be used as propaganda.

For the right it is to equate the evils of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others with Liberals. "Why liberals are communists. Look at the definition. See, the Al Fankens and Michael Moors would do well to remember this."

But this is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Those who paint conservatives as fascists are just as ignorant or disingenuous.

Originally posted by Evolver
From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."

Does this sound familiar? Yes, Nazi Germany, Mousalinis Italy and Fanco's Spain. NOT America. And in fact Nazi Germany didn't truly meet the definition.

Definition (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Facism)

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism). Nazism is usually considered as a kind of fascism, but it should be understood that Nazism sought the state's purpose in serving an ideal to valuing what its content should be: its people, race, and the social engineering of these aspects of culture to the ends of the greatest possible prosperity for them ant the expense of all else. In contrast, Mussolini's Fascism held to the ideology that all of theses factors existed to serve the stat and that it wasn't necessarily in the state's interest to serve or engineer any of these particulars within its sphere as any priority. The only purpose of the government under Fascism proper was to value itself as the highest priority to its culture in just being the state in itself, the larger scope of which, the better, and for these reasons it can be said to have been a government statolatry. While Nazism was a metapolitical ideology, seeing itself only as a utility by which an allegorical condition of its people was its goal, Fascism was a squarely anti-socialist for of statism that existed by virtue and as an ends in and of itself.Conservatives value the individual ABOVE the government. Conservatives are more often than not distrustful of government. Conservatives are against economic regimentation.[/quote]

[Michael Redman]

I think there's a clear difference between the threat of force and terror as a means of influence. Justice is not terrorism, although it very well may take the form of threatened violence. "Terror", in my opinion, implies something unfair, unpredictable, out of proportion, irrational, etc.

Blowing up innocent third-parties just to make people fear you is terrorism. Missing a legitimate target with a bomb and killing an innocent third party is not, because it is not intended to influence people through fear of similar treatment, and not likely to have that effect.

I don't think you can characterize Bush's actions as an attempt to influence through terror. He may be acting foolishly, and may be doing a great deal of harm, but that's a separate matter. Expanding the definition of terror to include anything we don't like is not a useful exercise.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by RandFan
Conservatives value the individual ABOVE the government. Conservatives are more often than not distrustful of government. Conservatives are against economic regimentation.Our Founding Fathers were liberals. The Tories were conservatives. Today, conservatives running this country are the ones arguing that the security of the state is more important than the liberty of the individual. I don't think the liberal-conservative spectrum fits the government-individual dichotomy as you claim.

[Tmy]

I think the common understanding of "terrorist" is someone who targets civilians for violence or threat of violence in order to advance a political agenda.

That way a crazed gunman may kill alot of innocent people, but hes not a terrorist cause he doesnt fit the agenda part. Hes just a maniac!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Our Founding Fathers were liberals. The Tories were conservatives. Today, conservatives running this country are the ones arguing that the security of the state is more important than the liberty of the individual. I don't think the liberal-conservative spectrum fits the government-individual dichotomy as you claim. One sees what one wants to see. I don't think there is a dichotomy. I certainly didn't claim one. By and large Conservatives think the individual right to own property, keep his/her money, choose occupation, right to keep and bear arms, etc are more important than societies needs. Many conservatives are unhappy with the patriot act (including the NRA) and other issues that have arisen since 9/11.

This is the problem with stereotypes. It is myopic and narrowly focuses on single issues or part of a groups identity to the exclusion of others.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by RandFan
By and large Conservatives think the individual right to own property, keep his/her money, choose occupation, right to keep and bear arms, etc are more important than societies needs.That is the problem with stereotypes. I don't think that this characterizes most Americans who identify themselves as "conservative". Many conservatives, for example, feel the government gets its sovereign power from God, and should us that power to impose moral standards on people, among other things. That's not what you are calling conservative (i.e. civil libertarian, etc.), but I think it's a more common usage today. Most people in this country would say the American Civil Liberties Union is liberal, even when they fight the goverment on behalf of individuals.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
That is the problem with stereotypes. I don't think that this characterizes most Americans who identify themselves as "conservative". Why?

Many conservatives, for example, feel the government gets its sovereign power from God, and should us that power to impose moral standards on people, among other things. You are falling in the trap of stereotyping. First I don't necessarily agree. But more important you say many, is that more than half? Less than half? Is it possible for a conservative to think the government has no business telling him what to do with his business or whether he can own a gun and still think certain social issues should be regulated?

That's not what you are calling conservative (i.e. civil libertarian, etc.), but I think it's a more common usage today. Most people in this country would say the American Civil Liberties Union is liberal, even when they fight the goverment on behalf of individuals. The ACLU is usually associated with Civil Liberties that many Americans view as Liberal. They don't usually come to the aid of individuals rights when it comes to property or weapons or other issues that generally fall on the conservative side of the fence.

Again, you are looking narrowly at what you perceive as "individual" rights.

[Michael Redman]

I’m falling into the trap of stereotypes because I challenged your assertion that “Conservatives value the individual ABOVE the government”? I don’t think so. I’m not making any categorical claims about anyone, just disputing yours.

Anyway, we've hijacked this thread, and I'm not going to continue.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I’m falling into the trap of stereotypes because I challenged your assertion that “Conservatives value the individual ABOVE the government”? I don’t think so. I’m not making any categorical claims about anyone, just disputing yours. I'm not making any categorical claims about anyone. On the contrary, my point is that such distinctions are simply wrong. I don't believe that there is a dichotomy between being conservative and not for individual rights. Humans are diverse and there are extremes and moderates in every group. That is the problem of stereotypes.

Anyway, we've hijacked this thread, and I'm not going to continue. Fine let it go.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Today, conservatives running this country are the ones arguing that the security of the state is more important than the liberty of the individual.


That's not true in the slightest. "Liberals" are just a guilty of this.