News-Record.com

One problem here: your standard psychopath walking around in Greensboro does not believe Allah has sent him on a jihad which justifies infidels, whomever or wherever they are. There is a difference.

Why does everyone, including Bush, want to eliminate the word terrorist and war on terrorism? Is the brand name getting old and need remarketing?

Left out the word "Killing" between "justifies" and "infidels".

I think it's a problem of perspective. We started out calling this a war, and most folks seemed to agree. If this is a war, it started out as a losing proposition for us, in that we lost about 3000 lives to the enemy's 19, and billions of dollars to their thousands.

While our government is now telling us we're now in a "struggle" against "extremism," I think these "psychopaths" really consider it a war, and that they are soldiers. You can call them all the names you want, but they see themselves as soldiers willing to die in order to help their cause. So long as they're willing to give up one soldier in exchange for 20 or 30 enemies, the danger will continue unabated.

Dan
If I remember correctly Bush is now using the word extremists instead of terrorists. At least for me this means he can now expand on the people and countries he would like to go after who dont fit neatly into the terrorist package. Just some general political sarcasm as all politicians change words to better fit their objectives.

Now if I am wrong about the word extremist then please ignore all imediate following comments.

But in a more serious general tone who decides who is a terrorist is an old debate;long before bin laden appeared. What seperates a terrorists from "freedom fighters". I doubt many in the IRA see themselves as terrorists but as freedom fighters but the answers would be reversed if you asked the british. Same can be true for the palestinians and the israelis. We viewed the contras as freedom fighters but they used brutal terrorists acts as well.

I doubt this has anything to do with the change in names. Change in names regardless of what it is reflects a change in direction of new arguements.

For me Bin laden and his followers are terrorist but if there is a change here then serial mass murderers would be my vote.

Norman, is that you? Norman!

As one who has worked in the field of psychology for a good number of years, I prefer to call them as they are. Terrorist and their acts as terrorism.

I believe the saying is " A rose by any other name is still a rose."

"That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." (Romeo & Juliette) Same point, though.

Psychopath implies a personal mental illness. A psychopath would be someone using an ideology to rationalize their inherent cruel impulses. Maybe the terrorists are not psychopaths, but are an example of Hannah Arendt's "banalty of evil?"

Calling these folks psychopaths adds nothing to the discussion. To me it's like Fox & "homocide bombers", an attempt to describe a person while adding a meaningless moral judgement in the mix.

These folks are acting in what is a rational manner to them. At the risk of getting the Rove treatment, I'll say that we need to understand what makes them tick and more importantly what makes their audience of potential recruits tick. Calling them names other than what they are clouds the issue. Terrorist works for me.

marshall, we know what makes them tick. They consider anyone not of the Muslim faith to be infidels and their aim is to kill all of us and destroy our way of life. It's just that simple.
The real question is how to defend against them.

Tom,

I think you oversimplify amigo. For example they've killed plenty of muslims, in fact they are mostly killing muslims in Iraq. You're right that they are wanting to destroy our way of life, for this is a clash of world views.

How to defend against them. Being on guard against attacks is a part of it but co-opting the audience of muslims that could go either way is the way to win. If they replace members faster than we eliminate them, they win. If they replace them slower and we stay resolute, we win.

Marshall, you've obviously never fought in Iraq.
It's simple...they want to kill us, eliminate us, destroy our entire way of life.
The ones that don't are not a problem, they don't need to be won over. The ones that do need to be eliminated.

Tom,

Assuming that you have fought in Iraq your job was to neutralize some Iraqis and protect others. Often times I'm sure you didn't know which was which. It was your job to discern the difference. The ones that your were there to protect you wanted to make sure that they didn't go over to the other side. That's no different than what I'm saying for the war on terror or whatever it's called these days.

You said they want to kill us. First you have to figure out who "they" are.

And you are correct. I've never fought in Iraq.

They are either for us or against us, not much middle ground there. Few "change sides." They're either Mulsim extremists and against us (very few, regardless of what the media would have you believe) or they're Muslims and Christians who are against the terrorists.
They are not motivated by what we may do or not do, they've already made up their minds. Their religious upbringing determines that, not what we do or don't do in regards to policy, etc.

GAWD! Sherron just described my ex-wife and her attorney!