"terrorism" and "perspectivity" of photography

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mandela did say in his autobiography he had made a conscious decision to become a saboteur, and he wasn't even French
 
bobbyrab said:
Actually, the lack of photographs of terrorists is a fairly good ready reckoner of what defines a terrorist. Terrorists work in small units in a clandestine manner to inflict violence on whoever will garner the greatest impact. By it's very nature it is almost unphotographable.
Where are the photographs of any of the thousands of car bombs that have been set over the years being set? The reason there aren't any is almost definition initself that those acts are acts of terror.
Click to expand...

yet, we all have a (very often 'arabised' and 'muslimised') picture in our head when we hear the word terrorist, and pictures of certain scenes (usually of 'aftermath') and certain places when he think of such acts...
 
noimmunity said:
This idea, which is today a widely held view, is simply part of the current ideological distortion.

The earliest uses of the of the word "terror" in relation to public events was during The Terror (1794) in France during the Jacobinist period of the French Revolution. "Terror" originally refers *exclusively* to the violence exercised by a State upon its people. Modern states, it will be remembered, are precisely defined by holding a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Hence, the original source of "terrorism" is the modern State.

Today the common definition of terrorism has been completely reversed. Now it seems that "terrorism" is never applied to States, but only and exclusively to non-State actors. This appears to make sense until we begin to look more closely at the transformations that have been occurring to States since the process of "globalization" began several decades ago. In fact, States have been progressively privatized and corporatized, leading to a situation today that is very much the reflection of that old Marxist dictum, "the State is always a state of class." Class, however, in a globalized era, isn't just something that happens inside a country; class is also a process that occurs on a global scale. Once we begin to look at the connections between economy and politics on a global scale, it becomes clear that State terrorism, which often goes cynically by the name of humanitarian intervention, is still very much alive and well. (Check out Christiane Vollaire, L'humanitaire le coeur de la guerre [Humanitarianism, the heart of war]).

People who talk only about "the terrorists" (such as Al Qaida, The Base Organization) yet forget about State Terror (such as drones, or 'copter attacks on children) and the extremely manipulative big money interests behind it are simply repeating the ideology of the current Reign of Terror.

But at least we should not suppress history and distort the definition of political terror.
Click to expand...

interesting, thanks!!
 
BW400CN said:
The problem is the one who is called a Terrorist is for some other a freedom fighter and hero - so what is terrorism and is there realy one?
It allways depends on which side you are standing.

A catholic in northern Ireland wouldn´t have called the IRA Terrorists - a british soldier ordered to Belfast ...
Click to expand...
I am a freedom fighter; you are a guerilla; he is a terrorist.
 
There is a current example of the 1794 "terror" in North Korea, at least according to the government of South Korea, and the phrase "reign of terror" has definitely been used of other state actors over the last few decades (Stalin, Pol Pot, Great Leap Forward, usw.)

Also, of course, terrorism has been photographed: beheading videos, for example.

The thing is, we tend to imagine that terrorists want to project "positive" images (getting people on their side) but this is not necessarily the case. A "negative" image ("this is what will happen to you unless you give in to our demands") might be equally effective in the long term. We all deplore beheading videos; but none of us is keen on being beheaded with a knife.

A very interesting question is however raised by an old legal question. Which is more effective, severity of punishment or certainty of punishment? In other words, if you knew that there was a 95% chance of paying a $1000 fine for speeding, would this be as great a deterrent (or greater, or less) as compared with a 0.00001% chance of having your head sawed off for denigrating Islam? Or indeed a 0.0001% chance of being banged up for supporting violent Salafist jihad? Or a 0.01% chance of having your right hand cut off for speeding? The question about the monopoly of legitimized violence (which is not necessarily the same thing as legitimate violence) is, as others have said, a political question.

Finally, to those who say, "Duh, this is a photographic forum, not a political forum" (and there are always some) I'd make a simple point. The only reason you are free to enjoy a forum like this is because there are people who support a society in which you can't be beheaded for using a Leica instead of a Canon. They care about politics, and take responsibility, even if you won't. Of course this is an exaggeration -- but it's (very loosely) based on the exaggerations of those who use "love" for "quite like" and "hate" for "am not keen on". As soon as you lose sight of calm rational discourse without ridiculous hyperbole; well, you've lost sight of calm rational discourse without ridiculous hyperbole.

Cheers,

R.
 
"A very interesting question is however raised by an old legal question. Which is more effective, severity of punishment or certainty of punishment? "

Severity on the punishment side leads to severity on the crime side. The three strikes in the US is one of the quiet frankly dumbest things every invented in any legal system. A robber will resort to more violence even deadly violence if he risks a life in prison because he was already caught 2 times. It's also a well known fact that the use of death penalty or long imprisonment for crimes results in more violent crimes as the criminal has to fear either a long incarceration or death so it doesn't matter to him wether he gets the death penalty for kidnapping or murden death penalty is death penalty and dead is dead.
 
DominikDUK said:
"A very interesting question is however raised by an old legal question. Which is more effective, severity of punishment or certainty of punishment? "

Severity on the punishment side leads to severity on the crime side. The three strikes in the US is one of the quiet frankly dumbest things every invented in any legal system. A robber will resort to more violence even deadly violence if he risks a life in prison because he was already caught 2 times. It's also a well known fact that the use of death penalty or long imprisonment for crimes results in more violent crimes as the criminal has to fear either a long incarceration or death so it doesn't matter to him wether he gets the death penalty for kidnapping or murden death penalty is death penalty and dead is dead.
Click to expand...
It is very hard to argue with this. A particularly clear example is sex crimes against little girls. A killer may very well get a sentence as long as someone convicted of rape. As "dead men tell no tales" (and the same is equally true of dead little girls) the rapist has quite an incentive to murder the unfortunate child.

And of course here's the recent Korean example of failing to applaud the Great Successor with sufficient enthusiasm. As this apparently carries the death penalty, why not plot the overthrow of the state as well?

R.
 
Israel does very well in creating terrorists, suicide bomber kills himself and many others and the family get punished despite the fact that the family often has nothing to do with his terrorist activities. Younger brother sees the destruction of his house by Israeli government, another terrorist has just been created. Russia plans to adopt a similar policy toward the families of terrorists. Politicians need terrorism and severe crime because they can sell restrictions (e.g. free speech) under the guise of national securitiy or fighting crime. They are also very aware that their actions causes more severe crimes and terrorism but they do everything to stay in power. For instance if you condone a terrorist act (say GW. Bush was maimed which I do not condone but a victim of his wars might) publicly meaning in an internet forum or in place with more than 30 people you risk a jail sentence of up to 5 years in Austria. Under the guise of fighting terrorism and crime governments around the world have taken away basic human rights like free speech, privacy, etc... Honestly have they stopped crime or terrorism no because they don't want to
 
Finally, to those who say, "Duh, this is a photographic forum, not a political forum" (and there are always some) I'd make a simple point. The only reason you are free to enjoy a forum like this is because there are people who support a society in which you can't be beheaded for using a Leica instead of a Canon. They care about politics, and take responsibility, even if you won't. Of course this is an exaggeration -- but it's (very loosely) based on the exaggerations of those who use "love" for "quite like" and "hate" for "am not keen on". As soon as you lose sight of calm rational discourse without ridiculous hyperbole; well, you've lost sight of calm rational discourse without ridiculous hyperbole.
Click to expand...

In the west, the worst offenders in this regard seem to me to be the members of political parties. The sight of the Republicans and the Democrats trying to out-stare each other over the U.S. budget was just as horrid as seeing Labour and the Conservatives accusing each other of being incompetent and stupid, rather than offering some form of constructive criticism. The French, Italians, Germans and Spanish are no better, either.

I sometimes wonder whether the saying about democracy being the worst possible political system, apart from all the others, is still true.
 
Americans should vote independent, not red or blue ;)

You wanted pictures? Well, I've one - well, not me but Wikimedia:
Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J27288%2C_Frankreich%2C_Bretagne%2C_Einsatz_gegen_die_Resistance.jpg

Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-J27288 / Koll / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

To the Germans French resistance was a terrorist organisation. The war on terrorism wasn't an invention of the Bush administration :eek:

Somebody said "all Muslim aggression since 1980 follows this latter pattern of indiscriminate violence with no clear intent beyond hurting the maximum number of non-combatants, regardless of who or what they are." and that simply isn't true. Al Queda bombing of US Embassies and the USS Cole were legitimate. Also, the actions of the Mudjaheddin in Afghanistan also weren't indiscriminate, as was the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. Muslim terrorists feel that their families are threatened and even killed by the west. They often refer to the suffering of "their women and children" to justify what they consider collateral damage.

I don't have a sound definition of terrorist - maybe we should simply stop using the term....
 
Terrorism is, as said also here, a word of many meanings... War on terrorism, is another one, It was fabricated by Bush Junior, on very questionable reasons. After all those "wars". the fact remains, there is no "winner", yes maybe one... OIL INDUSTRY. Now everyone will see there will be a shift in interest when USA has developed new techniques of producing oil and will be self sufficent. No reason to pour money to Far and Near East ...What remais is those useless chekings at airport where people lose time in travelling
 
SimonSawSunlight said:
... link, show, tell, discuss. what is terrorism? who are terrorists? what is terrorism used for and what is used against it? what interesting photography is there on the subject? how is photography (or video, and journalism in general) used in the context? [...]
i know this is a little against rff rules, but (as the terrorist i am) i ask you not to be shy when you think what you are saying is too "political" (whatever that means), please...
(a big old hello to the mods! ;) )

thanks!
Click to expand...

@ SimonSawSunlight: Here you go -
Terrorism
ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Full Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Click to expand...
(source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism )

And
Terrorist
Syllabification: (ter·ror·ist)
Pronunciation: /ˈterərist/
Translate terrorist | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
noun
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims
Click to expand...
(source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/terrorist )

Examples of terrorism would include but are not limited to the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lcYTJx9Y1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWHAf70RP8s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEH4ZVMSLOk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5eOknaXgYU
 
DominikDUK said:
The RAF for example had a lot of the public behind them when they started, because they didn't target "innocents" but bankers, leading Prosecutors etc... after a while though they went over the top and the tide turned against them.
Click to expand...

The RAF didn't have "a lot of the public behind them when they started". Sorry, but this is plain and utter nonsense. They had a small group of radical supporters and sympathizers behind them (maybe a couple of thousands at most) and that's it. The first victim of the RAF (1971) wasn't a banker or a prosecutor but Norbert Schmid, a plain-clothes policeman that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the RAF kept that ugly habit of leaving the dead bodies of common people (drivers, ordinary policemen, customs officers, housewives) lying around ever since. Collateral damage, that was, I guess.
There was no "going over the top" or a "tide turning against them", they were over the top right from the start and fighting on lost ground because their idea of urban guerilla warfare was completely disconnected from the realities of West German society in the late 60s and early 70s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top