Dad ... what's a terrorist?

Dad ... what's a terrorist?
By David Campbell
April 23, 2004


Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.
Dad ... what's a terrorist?

Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses
violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means
that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like
us, and sometimes even kill them.

Why do they kill them?

Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just
the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world
are full of hate.

Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill
them if all the soldiers don't leave?

Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are
hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what
they want the hostages will be killed.

So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people
unless they told us where all their weapons were?

No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call
it "good blackmail.
Good blackmail? What's that?

That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous
and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very
important to find them and destroy them.

But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.

True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.

So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?

No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to
stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many
ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that
meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and
fathers. Even children.

Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?

Yes ... just like him.

But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?

Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident.
Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything
else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just
the way things are.

So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?

Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and
they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be
killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.

What uniforms do terrorists wear?

That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the
civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent
people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.

War has rules?

Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack
someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.

So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were
just defending ourselves?

Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get
in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.

The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?

Technically speaking, yes. But ...

So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who
aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?

Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the
rules.

But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?

Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right
thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be
done to make Iraq a better place.

Is it a better place?

I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being
killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the
families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists.
We must stand firm.

Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?

Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...

So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?

Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated
issue and I don't know what I'd do ...

Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum
and Jamie I know what I'd do.

What?

I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for
ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.

But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.

I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?

David Campbell is a Melbourne writer.

HAHAHAHAHAHA The American Government So Stupid

Interesting...but.

If the US also broke all those nice rules because hey...it's war... there would be a hole in the earth about the size of a nuclear blast where we thought some country had WMD and I wouldn't have to read about someone blowing up a mess hall.

-DT

HAHAHAHAHAHA The American Government So Stupid

Anyone that can read all that and they say that the american gov is stupid is an idiot who apparently missed the point entirely.

Nygdan,

Calm down. Anger only creates even more ignorance.

Next time the kid asks, just show him this picture:

Originally posted by jsobecky
Next time the kid asks, just show him this picture:

And that would accomplish what, exactly? Making the kid believe a terrorist equals a man with Middle East features, a beard and a turban?

intresting read ( the kid has more common sense then bush him self )
find it funny how he tries to justify something to the kid and how he get hit back with the same comments he used

What a load of $#%#$ this kid is getting pushed into his head...


A terrorist is a soldier with an unrecognized and unaccepted mandate.


Example an irish man with a gun is a terrorist, coz no one accepts their mandate (to unite ireland and kick out the invaders). And english man with a gun is a soldier as the UK military has an accepted mandate (to protect britain and do what the US/NATO wants). See how the cunning devils at propaganda central can describe the same thing with different words depending on what side its on?

Orwellian double-speak nothing less.

Originally posted by Durden
And that would accomplish what, exactly? Making the kid believe a terrorist equals a man with Middle East features, a beard and a turban?

It would show him that that man with Middle East features, a beard and a turban is a terrorist.

Or are you denying that bin Laden is a terrorist?

The one I heard first went something like this:

It was about 50 years in the furture, and a man and his son are walking through the park on the site of the former WTC.

The son asks his father "Dad, what's the World Trade Center?"

The father replies, "Son, a long time ago it was two very tall buildings where 3,000 innocent people died when muslims crashed airplanes into them."

The son thinks for a minute and asks, "Dad, what's a muslim?"

The inference being, of course, that in the future there was no such thing as a muslim any more!

Originally posted by centurion1211

The inference being, of course, that in the future there was no such thing as a muslim any more!

what happend a 3rd crusade

could you give a link to the site where u got this ( i want to read all of it )

Good post, clever,funny, and true! the american goverment sure has some double standards.

A father and son puppet show.

You should of just posted your last line.

You're making it too simple. We're supposed to come up with more than common sense to sway these NeoCon's into believing the facts about this war. We can't just sit and patronize them with common sense, it's too simple.

I know it may be unpopular, but I still think that the WTC tragedy is overshadowed by the Iraqi Invasion.

Shock and Awe anyone? Bombing the crap out of civilian centers (4 million civilians live(d) in Baghdad), putting people away in the Gitmo Gulag for years at a time with no legal recourse, torturing prisoners, busting into people houses late at night to cart away any males who seems suspicious is TERRORISM, and of course, what free people the world over want: Military rule by a country that has no exact date for its' pullout.

Wake up.

The craziest thing, of course, is that Iraq had no WMDs, and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

And, haha, all for FREEDOM! Of course, what they've mostly been freed of is : electricity, clean water and security.

Of course, it's all worth it when you see how much safer the world is now, right?

Right?

Whether you agree with it or not, the current United States Administration is responsible for more innocent deaths around the world DAILY than all of the terrorist organizations put together.

AND, they terrorize their own people. Orange threat! Okay, Red Threat! Okay, we've intercepted some "chatter", so BE VIGILANT, report anything suspicious even if it's your neighbour!

jako

i belive word "terrorist" was first used by british army in Egypt during WW1, when an arab "terrorist" blew up the local gentelmens club, where most of high officers were just resting and having their cup of tea.
so a terrorist is a man or a woman blowing themselfs up and spreading terror?

if you want to know, who the "terrorist" is, you have to put yourself in his skin.
i belive the phrase "freedom fighters" is more appopriate in this case, since they are fighting for their freedom in their own land.
bombs kill your wife and children, soldiers in the streets shoot to death your brothers in cousins. what does that leave you with? it leaves you angry and thirsty for revenge. and you ask yourself:"what kind of terrorist kills women and children with airplanes?!?". then starts the fight for freedom, by all means necessary.
and belive me, every day there is more of them "terrorists" appearing all over the world!

but as always,
every story has its storyteller...

Oxford has got it wrong...

My definition....

"A terrorist is someone who DELIBERATELY targets and harms innocents in preference over military personnel or equipment, in order to use the terror threat of more such acts to achieve a political agenda."

Personally, I think my definition is much more of an improvement, and closer to the truth.

So if Jr. asks, feel free to use the definition above, and it will then become quite easy to tell who's wearing the white hats, and who's wearing the black....

Experts have a hard time defining what a terrorist is:

Even though most people can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition.

This site gives a different origination of the word:

It was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94. Originally, the leaders of this systematized attempt to weed out "traitors" among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty, but as the French Revolution soured, the word soon took on grim echoes of state violence and guillotines. Today, most terrorists dislike the label, according to Bruce Hoffman of the RAND think tank.

Both Excerpts taken from here: www.cfrterrorism.org...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The American Government

So Stupid

If the American government is stupid, and we're the leaders.....Imagine how stupid the British and Australian governments must be.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Oxford has got it wrong...

My definition....

"A terrorist is someone who DELIBERATELY targets and harms innocents in preference over military personnel or equipment, in order to use the terror threat of more such acts to achieve a political agenda."

Personally, I think my definition is much more of an improvement, and closer to the truth.

So if Jr. asks, feel free to use the definition above, and it will then become quite easy to tell who's wearing the white hats, and who's wearing the black....

I believe thats about a good a definition as to what a Terrorist is as you will find. A Terrorist uses Violence and the threat of violence to further a Political or personal ideal. But remember, one mans Terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and that is why they are so difficult to defeat.

Originally posted by Billing
The American Government So Stupid

That sounds like a blanket insult to me. In fact, I find it highly insulting. Just what government does the "peaceful, omnipotent one" owe his allegiance?