Should Street gangs be looked at as 'Terrorist Groups'

Are Street Gangs "Terrorists"

  • Yes, They are a Huge Problem.

    Votes: 17 54.8%
  • No, they are just 'criminals'

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • I dont know, let me think

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
This really boils down to personal preference for what the word "terrorism" and therefore "terrorist" means... the word has been around now for a very long time... and has been used in all of the ways described above. I prefer a narrower definition. If I'm right that doesn't necessarily make DC wrong, I just disagree with him on what is essentially an aesthetic point.

Seriously, how do you decide which group deserves the label "terrorist" and which group does not?

I believe the correct way to do this is by narrowly defining the term.

I believe the incorrect and lamentable way to do this is by stripping the word of genuine meaning and instead applying to it pure connotation and then using it to describe everyone you don't like.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Sorry, folks. I guess I was using a definition something along the lines of

"An individual or group that attempts to manipulate or control a given population by use of tactics intended to induce fear or terror." John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo fit that description in my book. Anyone care to agree or disagree with that?

big d and NIC, you have both said that street gangs are not terrorists, because they don't fit your definition, but neither of you has given one. help us out here, so we know what we are debating with you.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
The definition for terrorism is listed below. The only question is if the Mafia/gang's terroristic like practices are sufficiently motivated by political purposes. The more maintained the ethnic identity of the mafia/gang the more likely they are in fact a political movement and therefore terrorists. I think the LA latino gangs are terrorists or will eventually become terrorists.

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1785–95; terror + -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
terrorism
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]
General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source terrorism
noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
I would argue that drive-by shootings are in fact a form of intimidating a segment or segments of society - and therefore fits the description. Many of the gangs use random rapes or murders as part of their initiation. The initiate has to pick a stranger off the street and rob or rape or murder that victim. And they use terrorist tactics to discourage rival gangs from encroaching on their "turf."

But to what end? What are they trying to acheive - what is the objective they wish to atain with these terror tactics? (not 'terrorist' tatcis - I disagree with putting it that way) Of course drive bys and other gang behavious intimidate and terrorize - but that on its own doesn't equal terrorism.

Then why is it just now that are gangs are deserving of the terrrrrist label? It's just fear mongering on the part of Americans, pure and simple.

Do gangs terrorize, sure, are they terrorists by the historical definition? No.

Yup - I agree.

"NO! Sorry DJG but by even voicing this question you are just reflecting the insane handwringing hysteria far too prevolent in American society since the WTC and Pentagon attacks."

So, but asking this question I am "handwringing"?

Is this going to turn into another post that you have to leave due to anger?

I never said you were handwringing - I said (and you quote it yourself) that you were "reflecting the insane handwringing hysteria far too prevolent in American society"

That's not the same as caling you handwringing - there is nothing hysterical about your post either. Read before you react, man.

Also - I left the 'hate poster' thread because I have a policy of not arguing religion online that I was breaking - I thought I made that clear. It was nothing to do with anger - you're being unfair and misrepresenting my attitude to people who have not read that thread.

I wouldn't include "threatened use" in the definition.

Well you'd be wrong then. Why, answer me, do terrorists call in bomb warnings? The loss of human life is not the main objective - it is the terror that is the main objective. 'threatened use' is an enormous part of terrorism... how much money and effort did the Bristish government expend on the threat from Irish Republican groups in the 70's and 80's.

I'm not too wild about the rest of that definition, either. It doesn't really capture the essence of "terrorism" as a strategy.

Well enlighten us, oh dirigible one...
 

D_N Flay Table

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
2,711
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
But to what end? What are they trying to acheive - what is the objective they wish to atain with these terror tactics? (not 'terrorist' tatcis - I disagree with putting it that way) Of course drive bys and other gang behavious intimidate and terrorize - but that on its own doesn't equal terrorism.



Yup - I agree.




I never said you were handwringing - I said (and you quote it yourself) that you were "reflecting the insane handwringing hysteria far too prevolent in American society"

That's not the same as caling you handwringing - there is nothing hysterical about your post either. Read before you react, man.

Also - I left the 'hate poster' thread because I have a policy of not arguing religion online that I was breaking - I thought I made that clear. It was nothing to do with anger - you're being unfair and misrepresenting my attitude to people who have not read that thread.



Well you'd be wrong then. Why, answer me, do terrorists call in bomb warnings? The loss of human life is not the main objective - it is the terror that is the main objective. 'threatened use' is an enormous part of terrorism... how much money and effort did the Bristish government expend on the threat from Irish Republican groups in the 70's and 80's.








Well enlighten us, oh dirigible one...



we fight so much, yet I want to bang you so bad...
angry sex is the best.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Well, either the use of violence, and the subsequent threat of violence, constitutes terrorism, or it does not.

ManlyBanisters, does the goal define it, or does the action? Does the goal have to be political? If the airplanes which crashed into the World Trade Center had been commandeered by someone whose goal was to inform others that they must stay away from 42nd Street unless they flash the sign, would it have rendered that action as a non-terrorist action? If my demand is simply "leave me alone" and I keep bombing public places, does that make me a terrorist or not? "leave me alone" is not necessarily a political demand.
 

Kassokilleri2ff

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Posts
870
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Enfield (Connecticut, United States)
I think its stupid to call them terrorists. They are gangs. Its what they are called. Technically i could say that christians are terrorists. But thats stupid. We are just throwing around the word terrorist, till it has no meaning anymore. Lets leave the term "terrorists" to the real terrorists, and the word "gangbangers" to the gangs.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Well, either the use of violence, and the subsequent threat of violence, constitutes terrorism, or it does not.

ManlyBanisters, does the goal define it, or does the action? Does the goal have to be political? If the airplanes which crashed into the World Trade Center had been commandeered by someone whose goal was to inform others that they must stay away from 42nd Street unless they flash the sign, would it have rendered that action as a non-terrorist action? If my demand is simply "leave me alone" and I keep bombing public places, does that make me a terrorist or not? "leave me alone" is not necessarily a political demand.

It's the combination of goal and action

"If the airplanes which crashed into the World Trade Center had been commandeered by someone whose goal was to inform others that they must stay away from 42nd Street unless they flash the sign" - And that is SO likely - I mean people just do that, right?

Yes - if you bomb public places to be 'left alone' you may well be a terrorist - it depends what your definition of being left alone is. You mean free from the constraints of society, not paying taxes and stuff - or do you just mean people shouldn't talk to you (in which case you'd just be a nutter - not that the 2 are mutually exclusive - I'll give you that)
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
I find it amusing that more people will be killed by gangs (kills per hour) than by ANY terrorist incident in the world (baring the oh-so-obvious hot spots).

I dunno about you, but I believe that a free citizen has the free right to go anywhere that is not illegal to venture, none of this bullshit about turf, guns, gang wars etc, etc... and those that break that freedom should be treated harshly. Heck it's coming to the point where I'm probably one of the few "outsiders" that actually ventures into the black areas of London without virtually crapping myself.

It's a form of "terror" in that people are even scared to go places isn't that sad?

Heck, if we were doing the same tactics in Iraq as we were doing on the street, crime rates would drop to tiny levels.